ACC PM 28/03/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) AFPM ’18: Petrochemical Execs Underscore Importance of Free Trade

   Mar 27, 2018 | ICIS

   By Pearl Bantillo
   
   
   A number of industry executives attending this year’s International Petrochemical Conference underscored the importance of free trade, and are wary of the protectionist stance taken by the US and China against each other in recent weeks.
2. (ACC Mentioned) 5 Dividend-Paying Chemical Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio

   Mar 28, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   The chemical industry demonstrated a stellar performance in fourth-quarter 2017.
3. How Scott Pruitt’s EPA is Attacking Journalists and Stifling the Media

   Mar 28, 2018 | Salon

   By Evlondo Cooper
   
   
   Since Scott Pruitt took the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency in early 2017, the EPA has consistently refused to release basic information, blocked reporters from attending agency events, and attacked journalists and outlets whose coverage it didn't like.

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

4. Ewire: EPA, States Meet to Speed Permitting

   Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

   EPA is meeting with state regulators in an effort to speed agency approvals of draft state air, water and other permits as part of the Trump administration's push to encourage infrastructure and other projects.

Energy News

5. $9.5 Billion Shale Deal Could Signal Consolidation in Permian

   Mar 28, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal

   By Christopher M. Matthews and Bradley Olson
   
   
   Concho Resources Inc. CXO -8.38% has agreed to buy RSP Permian Inc. RSPP +15.96% in a deal that could herald the start of a consolidation push in America’s most active shale-drilling region.
6. Concho Resources to Buy RSP Permian in $8 Billion West Texas Merger

   Mar 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

   By Jordan Blum
   
   
   Midland-based Concho Resources said it will pay $8 billion to buy West Texas rival RSP Permian in a merger that creates the largest shale driller in the booming Permian.
7. Here's the Strategy Behind Cities' Lawsuits Against Big Oil

   Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Anne C. Mulkern
   
   
   Lawsuits seeking to make oil companies pay for climate-related damages in California could go forward in both state and federal courts, after judges issued split decisions on where the cases belong.
8. ConocoPhillips Agrees to Disclose Lobbying Info

   Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Benjamin Hulac
   
   
   ConocoPhillips reached a deal with shareholders to disclose more information about its political lobbying activities.
9. Utilities, Northeast States Clash Over Proof For EPA Interstate Air Petitions

   Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Stuart Parker
   
   
   Electric utilities and Northeastern states are clashing over the standard of proof states must meet in order to succeed with Clean Air Act petitions asking for direct federal regulation of air pollution sources in one state that are hindering another state's ability to attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) such as the ozone NAAQS.
10. A Year After Trump's Energy Order, Rollbacks Inch Forward

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer
    
    
    Suspense built for weeks in the lead-up to President Trump's "energy independence" executive order last year.
11. Who's on Trump's Energy Team Now?

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender
    
    
    There's a new energy and climate team at the White House.

Chemical Security News

12. Grid's Physical Safeguards 'A Work in Progress' — CRS

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    The electric power industry's efforts to secure the grid remain "a work in progress" five years after an eye-opening attack on a California substation, according to congressional researchers.
13. EPA Stepping Up Cybersecurity Effort Following Recent Utility Attack

    Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

    EPA is stepping up its effort to prepare water utilities for possible cybersecurity attacks in the wake of recent Russian government attacks on water utilities and other critical infrastructure.
14. Los Alamos Lost Toxic Waste Containers for a Week

    Mar 28, 2018 | Santa Fe New Mexican (In E&E Greenwire)

    By Rebecca Moss
    
    
    Los Alamos National Laboratory misplaced two containers of chemical waste earlier this year, sending officials on a search that lasted a week, according to a newly released letter.
15. Chemical Spill at Medical Clinic Sends 15 to Hospital

    Mar 28, 2018 | Chicago Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)

    By Kate Thayer
    
    
    A chemical spill at a Chicago-area medical clinic yesterday sent 15 people to the hospital with complaints of respiratory issues and nausea, fire officials said.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

16. Poll: Partisanship in Global Warming Opinions Growing

    Mar 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    The partisan divide among American adults regarding climate change appears to be growing, according to a new poll.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) AFPM ’18: Petrochemical Execs Underscore Importance of Free Trade

   Mar 27, 2018 | ICIS

   By Pearl Bantillo

   A number of industry executives attending this year’s International Petrochemical Conference underscored the importance of free trade, and are wary of the protectionist stance taken by the US and China against each other in recent weeks.

   Although most chemicals are not expected to be hit by the tariffs, concerns that a trade war is brewing between the biggest and second-biggest economies of the world have been weighing down on market sentiment, creating uncertainties that tend to slow trade down.

   Expectations that the US and China will begin negotiations this week provided a lift to the global equities markets.

   “Free and fair trade has been good for our country, for US consumers and for us [the chemical industry]. Global demand for our projects continues to rise [and] this is why we support NAFTA [the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada],” American Fuels & Petrochemicals Manufacturers (AFPM) CEO Chet Thompson said.

   Based on estimates from the American Chemical Council (ACC), some $133bn worth of industry investments may be at risk by the US decision to impose import tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium.

   Last week, US President Donald Trump announced that tariffs may be imposed on up to $60bn worth of Chinese goods, to which China responded with a plan to slap tariffs on 128 US goods, including pork (25%) and recycled aluminium, and American steel pipes (15%).

   On 26 March, China proposed to hike tariffs on US ethanol to 45% from 30% currently. The US is China’s top suppliers of ethanol.

   Middle East-based companies EQUATE Petrochemical in Kuwait and Qatar Chemical also weighed on the call for trade liberalisation.

   “We, as a company, believe in free trade. This is what we think is optimal for the world, so I would say that at this stage, there is no major impact but we are keeping an eye on it,” EQUATE Petrochemical CEO and president Ramesh Ramachandran said.

   “Clearly, the right thing for the entire industry is for free trade to exist across the world,” he said.

   Qatar Chemical (Q-Chemical) chief executive Nasser Jeham Al-Kuwari warned that putting up trade barriers would affect projects in the US, echoing ACC’s comments.

   “The US must play it smart. Tariffs would hurt [the] industry [of both the US and China]… they should talk to each other,” Al-Kuwari said.

   Other industry players are not too concerned about the possibility of a trade war between the US and China, upbeat that the current tensions will ease and will be resolved soon enough.

   At the close of China's National People's Congress on 20 March, China Premier Li Keqiang had said that no winner will emerge from a trade war scenario as it goes against the foundations of trade, which are negotiation, consultation and dialogue, and pledged to continue to cut import tariffs.

   Hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the IPC takes place on 25-27 March in San Antonio, Texas.

   https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/03/27/10206764/afpm-18-petrochemical-execs-underscore-importance-of-free-trade/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) 5 Dividend-Paying Chemical Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio

   Mar 28, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   The chemical industry demonstrated a stellar performance in fourth-quarter 2017. A host of companies in the space delivered better-than-expected earnings driven by strategic measures like pricing actions, improving productivity, restructuring of portfolio and earnings-accretive acquisitions along with continued strong demand across automotive and construction markets. Moreover, President Donald Trump's business-friendly tax reform contributed to the impressive performance.
   
   The chemical industry is grouped under the Zacks Basic Materialssector , which was among the Zacks sectors that scored the strongest gains in the fourth quarter. Overall earnings for the sector climbed 45.2% while revenues jumped 21.3%. Around 89.5% of the sector participants posted earnings beat and around 73.7% surpassed revenue expectations.
   
   How are Things Shaping Up in the Chemical Industry?
   
   The chemical industry is benefiting from a resurgent global economy and strength across major end-use markets including automotive and construction. Moreover, the fundamentals across the energy space, another key market for chemicals, have been improving lately. A rebound in crude oil prices has helped recover demand for chemicals in the energy market.
   
   Healthy Demand and Exports to Drive U.S. Chemical: The U.S. chemical industry is likely to benefit from capital investments, higher demand across housing markets and light vehicles and improving export markets.
   
   Latin America and Asia - two of the key export markets for the industry - are expected to play a significant role in the growth of basic chemical production this year and the next. Moreover, strengthening export markets along with increasing capital spending have been driving the demand for chemicals across key end-use markets such as light vehicles and housing.  
   
   Per the industry trade group, American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), the U.S. chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) is expected to rise 3.7% in 2018 and further accelerate to 3.9% in 2019.
   
   Continued Investments to Boost Growth: The United States remains an attractive destination for investment and the domestic chemical makers continue enjoying the availability of cheaper and abundant feedstocks and energy, which is driving investments in chemical projects.
   
   The chemical industry invested $185 billion in restarting plants, expansions and building new factories across the United States with more than 50% of these projects under the planning stage, per the ACC. This is likely to boost capacity and exports in the long run.
   
   Revival of the EU Chemical Industry: The European chemical industry is finally experiencing an upturn after a long time, thanks to an improving global economic sentiment and positive developments across the Eurozone, which is driven by factors like monetary stimulus from the European Central Bank, declining unemployment, strengthening consumer and business confidence.
   
   Per the European Chemical Industry Council ("CEFIC"), chemical output in the EU rose above the pre-economic crisis level for the first time in fourth-quarter 2017. CEFIC projects the chemical output in EU to rise 2% year over year in 2018.
   
   How Dividend Paying Stocks Can Boost Your Portfolio
   
   In addition to the positive developments mentioned earlier, we believe that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will be another major tailwind for dividend paying stocks in the chemical space.
   
   The newly introduced tax reform significantly reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, which is a positive for chemical stocks. This is expected to boost their bottom line, improve cash flows and incentivize capital investment. Moreover, many of the companies are likely to pay more dividends and buyback shares reaping the benefits of the new tax law.
   
   5 Top-Notch Dividend Players
   
   We have employed the Zacks Stocks Screener to find chemical companies that offer a dividend yield of more than 2% and sport a favorable Zacks Rank.
   
   Below we highlight five top-ranked chemical stocks that offer attractive dividend yield and also boast solid long-term growth prospects.
   
   LyondellBasell Industries N.V.LYB
   
   This Netherlands-based company is among the leading plastics, chemical and refining companies globally. The stock currently sports a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
   
   The stock offers a healthy dividend yield of 3.8% and has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 9%.
   
   Kronos Worldwide, Inc.KRO
   
   This Texas-based company is a leading producer and marketer of titanium dioxide or TiO2 pigments, which are used in a wide array of industrial product applications such as plastics, coatings and paper.
   
   The stock currently flaunts a Zacks Rank #1 and offers a dividend yield of 3%. The company has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 5%.
   
   Huntsman CorporationHUN
   
   Texas-based Huntsman is a global producer of differentiated organic chemical products and currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).
   
   The stock offers a dividend yield of 2.2% and has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 8.3%.
   
   Methanex CorporationMEOH
   
   This Canada-based company is the world's largest producer and supplier of methanol. The stock currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 and offers dividend yield of 2.2%. It has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 15%.
   
   Eastman Chemical CompanyEMN
   
   This Zacks Rank #2 company is a global chemical producer boasting a broad portfolio of chemical, plastic and fiber products.
   
   The stock has a dividend yield of 2.1% and an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 8.9%.
   
   Will You Make a Fortune on the Shift to Electric Cars?
   
   Here's another stock idea to consider. Much like petroleum 150 years ago, lithium power may soon shake the world, creating millionaires and reshaping geo-politics. Soon electric vehicles (EVs) may be cheaper than gas guzzlers. Some are already reaching 265 miles on a single charge.
   
   With battery prices plummeting and charging stations set to multiply, one company stands out as the #1 stock to buy according to Zacks research.
   
   It's not the one you think.

   https://www.nasdaq.com/article/5-dividend-paying-chemical-stocks-to-enrich-your-portfolio-cm940853
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. How Scott Pruitt’s EPA is Attacking Journalists and Stifling the Media

   Mar 28, 2018 | Salon

   By Evlondo Cooper

   This article originally appeared on Media Matters.

   Since Scott Pruitt took the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency in early 2017, the EPA has consistently refused to release basic information, blocked reporters from attending agency events, and attacked journalists and outlets whose coverage it didn't like. This antagonistic stance toward the media mirrors President Donald Trump’s unprecedented war against the press, which Media Matters has chronicled.

   Seeking a reset after a year of the agency’s attacks and obfuscation, the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) sent a letter to the EPA’s press office in January in the hopes of improving journalists’ access to EPA information and “begin[ning] a conversation about journalists’ basic needs.” The letter made five requests, which the group summarized on its website:Respond to inquiries in a meaningful and timely manner, arranging interviews with subject matter experts.Distribute all press releases and advisories, to all who request them, not just to a select audience.Hold open press briefings on significant news. Invite all regular beat reporters to in-person briefings held at EPA headquarters; provide web conferencing and teleconference access for all interested reporters outside the Washington area.Reinstate the practice of publishing a weekly list of the EPA administrator’s scheduled public appearances.Resume the practice of publishing an up-to-date calendar of all the EPA administrator’s meetings — not just public events.

   The EPA failed to respond to SEJ’s letter — or to a follow-up inquiry — so the group released the letter publicly in March.

   Here are more than a dozen examples of Pruitt's EPA assailing the press or frustrating journalists' efforts to cover the agency's actions.

   EPA withholds Pruitt’s schedule from the press. Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who headed the agency under President Barack Obama from 2013 to early 2017, shared her schedule on the EPA website every day, but Pruitt, like many other members of Trump's cabinet, withholds basic information about his activities. According to Politico, the EPA has refused “to provide schedules or advisories of his upcoming meetings, confirm his attendance at specific events, or say what city he plans to be in on a given day.” As a result, news outlets and watchdog groups have filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits to obtain his calendars. When the EPA has eventually responded and released information about Pruitt's schedule, it has generally been bare-bones, partially redacted, or months late.

   EPA spokesperson: “Pruitt does not want open press.” While coordinating logistics for a roundtable discussion Pruitt held at the University of North Dakota with the state's senior senator, John Hoeven (R), and governor, Doug Burgum (R), EPA spokesperson Jahan Wilcox asked that reporters not be permitted to attend, E&E News reported. Hoeven had wanted to include media, but Wilcox wrote to Burgum’s staffers that “most importantly Pruitt does not want open press." After being informed that reporters had already been invited to the last 15 minutes of the event, Wilcox insisted, “We can't have anything open.”

   EPA spokesperson called police on North Dakota reporters trying to cover Pruitt event. EPA spokesperson Wilcox threatened to call the police on two reporters from the Grand Forks Herald who were attempting to cover Pruitt’s August 9 visit to the University of North Dakota. The Herald reported that after Wilcox made his threat, “A UND Police officer then arrived to insist the building and its grounds were private property before demanding the reporters move away from the center's front door. … The EERC is not private property and is owned by UND.”

   EPA asked radio host not to take listener calls during interview with Pruitt. During his August 9 visit to North Dakota, Pruitt sat for a joint interview with Gov. Burgum, conducted by local talk radio host Scott Hennen. Hennen normally takes listener calls during his show, but documents obtained by E&E News show that EPA spokesperson Wilcox asked him not to during the Pruitt interview, and Hennen acquiesced.

   EPA terminated funding for a nonprofit newspaper after it reported that Trump's budget cuts would hurt the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Journal, a nonprofit newspaperthat covers environmental issues in the Chesapeake Bay region and reaches approximately 100,000 readers, has been partially funded by the EPA since 1991. Last June, the paper reported that Trump's proposed budget would slash funding for Chesapeake Bay programs and harm restoration efforts. In August, the EPA abruptly canceled a previously approved $325,000 grant to the paper due to a “shift in priorities." The Bay Journal requested records pertaining to the termination, which EPA failed to produce, so the paper sued. Under pressure from Maryland's Democratic senators, the EPA restored the Bay Journal’s funding in March.

   EPA attacked NY Times reporters in press release over pesticide story. On August 18, The New York Times published a story detailing how the EPA disregarded the advice of agency scientists by refusing to ban a harmful pesticide after Pruitt met with farming industry executives and told them he was listening to their pleas. Three days later, the EPA issued a press release attacking the story and accusing the reporters, Eric Lipton and Roni Caryn Rabin, of reporting "false facts" and omitting “inconvenient facts.” Though the EPA did not dispute any of the story’s specific factual claims, the press release also stated that "the New York Times never lets the truth get in the way of a good story."

   EPA attacked AP reporter in press release over toxic-site story. On September 2, The Associated Press published a story on toxic sites flooding in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, which Washington Post media critic Eric Wemple later declared to be "factually sound." But the EPA issued a press release criticizing the story and attacking the credibility of the AP and Michael Biesecker, one of the reporters who wrote it. "Unfortunately, the Associated Press’ Michael Biesecker has a history of not letting the facts get in the way of his story," the agency’s release read. The press release also included a statement from EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman that accused the AP of attempting to “mislead Americans” by “cherry-picking facts.” To bolster its attack on Biesecker and the AP, the release cited a Breitbart News article.

   EPA dropped AP reporter from its email list and criticized him for not opening positive emails about Pruitt. The EPA had been unhappy with AP reporter Biesecker even before he published his story about toxic site flooding after Harvey. When The Washington Post's Wemple asked the EPA about its ongoing conflict with Biesecker, an agency official said that the EPA had removed Biesecker from its master email list, explaining, “We don’t think he’s a trustworthy reporter.” An EPA official also told the Post that the agency monitored which journalists opened its emailed press releases: “We are able to see who opens our emails,” the official said. “Michael [Biesecker] very rarely opens a positive story about [EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt. He only opens stories where he tries to create problems.”

   EPA warned employees against leaking to the press. The EPA required employees to attend training sessions that warned them of the dangers of leaking sensitive information to the media, The Associated Press reported. During the mandatory training, employees were given a fact sheet that detailed how leaks have harmed America in the past and warned, "Enemies of the United States are relentless in their pursuit of information which they can exploit to harm US interests."

   EPA spokesperson misled NY Times reporter. In a talk at Yale, New York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman recounted an instance in October when an EPA spokesperson gave her inaccurate information. Per the Yale Daily News, Friedman "said a spokesman for the EPA disputed the claim that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt planned to announce the decision [to roll back the Clean Power Plan] in Kentucky with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. The spokesman told her that 'it was not accurate' to say that Pruitt was going to make such an announcement.” Friedman then told the audience, “Except for it was absolutely accurate, and Fox News was invited.” Friedman also said, “Covering the EPA is like covering the CIA. It is so secretive. It is so difficult even to get basic information.”

   EPA accused NY Times reporter of being “biased” and “writing elitist click bait.” When Times reporter Lipton sent detailed questions to the EPA about the agency loosening regulations on toxic chemicals, EPA spokesperson Bowman refused to answer his queries. Instead, she sent a caustic comment by email: “No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece. The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist click bait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country.” Lipton quoted her comment in his article.

   EPA refused to confirm basic facts to NY Times reporter, then accused him of stealing from other news outlets. The Washington Post's Wemple reported further details on Lipton's back-and-forth with the EPA about his story on toxic chemical regulations. Lipton asked EPA spokesperson Bowman to confirm reports that Michael Dourson, Trump's nominee to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, began working at the EPA before being confirmed by the Senate. Bowman referred Lipton to stories published by USA Today and E&E News, which Lipton took as confirmation. Then EPA spokesperson Wilcox jumped into email chain, interjecting, “If you want to steal work from other outlets and pretend like it’s your own reporting that is your decision.” After Lipton explained to both spokespersons that basic fact-checking is critical to avoiding “Fake News,” Wilcox, ccing USA Today’s and E&E News’ reporters, replied to Lipton, “Adding the two outlets who you want to steal their work from to this email.”

   EPA had police remove reporter from Pruitt event in Iowa. Ethan Stoetzer, a journalist with InsideSources Iowa, never received a response after trying repeatedly to contact the EPA to RSVP for a December 1 event where Pruitt would be speaking at a cattle company headquarters in Iowa. The event was invite-only, but media were permitted to attend. According to his reporting, Stoetzer showed up to the event site and was initially allowed to enter the press booth. But then he “was approached by a Story County Sheriff’s Deputy, as well as several staff members of both the EPA and Couser Cattle Company, who did not give their names when asked, and was told that he had to leave the premises.” He reported that other members of the media who had not RSVP’d were allowed to remain at the event. EPA spokesperson Wilcox did not reply to repeated questions about why Stoetzer was forced off the premises.

   EPA hired Republican opposition-research firm to conduct "war room"-style media monitoring. The EPA awarded a no-bid contract worth $120,000 to an opposition-research firm, Definers Corp, that not only has deep connections to the Republican establishment, but is also tied to a research group that had been “looking for information that could undermine employees who had criticized the E.P.A.,” as The New York Timesreported. Under the contract, Definers would provide the EPA with “‘war room’-style media monitoring, analysis, and advice,” Mother Jones reported. The controversial contract was rescinded after media reports led to political outcry.

   EPA misled press about Pruitt's travel, then stonewalled. After journalists reported in February 2018 on Pruitt’s exorbitant travel expenses, EPA spokesperson Wilcox initially told Politico that Pruitt had received a blanket waiver to travel first or business class. But a spokesperson for the General Services Administration, which oversees rules about officials' travel, told Politico that it does not issue blanket waivers. Wilcox then changed his story and said that Pruitt submits a request for a waiver for each trip. Refusing to answer further questions about Pruitt’s travel, Wilcox directed reporters to use FOIA to request additional information, "a process that can take months or years," Politico noted.

   EPA to reporters: You'll have to wait a year for responses to your FOIA requests. The EPA has been slow in responding to FOIA requests about Pruitt's office from media organizations and other groups, according to an analysis by the Project on Government Oversight. The agency has closed only about 17 percent of records requests related to Pruitt’s activities, Politico reported in February. This aligns with the anecdotal stories of journalists who, when not ignored by the EPA, were informed that it would take a year to receive responsesto their records requests. The Washington Post also reported that "high-level officials" at EPA are "keeping closer tabs" on FOIA requests. And CNBC reported on a lawsuit filed against EPA alleging the agency "has systematically refused to document 'essential activities' under Pruitt, and higher-ups are creating a culture in which career employees are discouraged from creating written records."

   https://www.salon.com/2018/03/28/how-scott-pruitts-epa-is-attacking-journalists-and-stifling-the-media_partner/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Chemical Management News

4. Ewire: EPA, States Meet to Speed Permitting

   Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

   EPA is meeting with state regulators in an effort to speed agency approvals of draft state air, water and other permits as part of the Trump administration's push to encourage infrastructure and other projects.

   Bloomberg Environment reports that EPA has been holding week-long meetings with state regulators to review delays in issuing new drinking water permits issued for underground injection wells used in the oil and gas sector, as well as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

   EPA Chief of Operations Henry Darwin told Bloomberg Environment on the sidelines of the Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) Spring Meeting March 20-22 in St. Paul, MN, that the meetings with states are now beginning to focus on new source review (NSR) permits.

   Agency officials have also discussed with their state counterparts the chemicals EPA is planning to review under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.

   Such efforts underscore broad Trump administration efforts to speed permitting and other environmental reviews projects must undergo before approval. In the latest sign of the administration's push, the White House March 27 issued a statement touting its efforts to advance infrastructure permitting and quoted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt renewing his support for speeding permit approvals.

   The statement quoted Pruitt as saying that President Donald Trump's recently unveiled infrastructure funding plan “calls for [EPA to play a leading role in the administration’s efforts. Through important permitting reforms and localized investments and incentives, EPA would be an integral part of initiating new projects and accelerating current endeavors to completion.”

   Darwin told Bloomberg Environment that he is also working more broadly to identify causes of delays in issuing various permits and resolve those problems under the “lean” management system he is working to implement across EPA.

   “I want to get an idea of how many permits are out there that are sitting for longer than six months. That will help us prioritize our lean process,” Darwin said. “EPA doesn’t track how long it takes to issue permits.”

   That reflect Pruitt and Darwin's focus on using “Lean” management systems, adopted from industry to streamline agency processes. Trump administration officials, including Darwin, have also backed ECOS' push for improving states' working relationships with EPA through cooperative federalism.

   State regulators' meetings with EPA are also seeking to improve federal oversight of state environmental programs by clarifying the level of deference EPA regional officials should provide states and crafting an elevation policy to quickly resolve conflicts that may slow regulatory decisionmaking.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-epa-states-meet-speed-permitting
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

5. $9.5 Billion Shale Deal Could Signal Consolidation in Permian

   Mar 28, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal

   By Christopher M. Matthews and Bradley Olson

   Concho Resources Inc. CXO -8.38% has agreed to buy RSP Permian Inc. RSPP +15.96% in a deal that could herald the start of a consolidation push in America’s most active shale-drilling region.

   The companies are valuing the all-stock deal at roughly $9.5 billion, including net debt from RSP, both firms said Wednesday. That would make it the largest-ever deal in the Permian Basin, the area of Texas and New Mexico where big companies including Exxon Mobil Corp.XOM -0.25% and Chevron Corp. are now ramping up production along with smaller independent shale drillers.

   The deal could mean it is “game on in the Permian,” investment bank Jefferies Group LLC said in a note to investors, as other producers in the region could move to snatch up smaller competitors. The combination will make Concho the region’s biggest current active driller, the companies said.

   “We’re now getting more into the development phase” of the U.S. shale boom, said Tim Leach, chief executive of Concho Resources. “The efficiency that you can gain by a bigger balance sheet and a bigger program is really what’s driving this transaction.”

   The pace of deals for U.S. shale producers has slowed recently as investors demand the companies exercise discipline and live within their means to provide better returns to shareholders. Larger-scale deals involving assets across the U.S. have been unpalatable to many producers because of shareholder pressure, say bankers and lawyers advising the companies. But deals restricted to assets in the Permian, where logistical scale can provide a huge advantage, could make sense, some say.

   As the U.S. shale boom matures and drilling levels continue to intensify in the Permian basin, more operators are trying to boost production while holding down costs. That has become far more complex as companies scramble for workers and supplies needed for the enormous fracking jobs that are far more common now.

   Managing the logistical challenge of preparing and disposing of the sand, water, chemicals and other supplies needed for these developments has become a daunting prospect. For example, the sand required for just one well can fill 100 railcars, according to industry analysts.

   “If one considers the importance of scale/scope in a currently labor and service constrained Permian basin. this represents a long-term significant strategic advantage,” said Simmons & Co. in a note to investors.

   Companies also are moving to drill many wells all at once in certain areas to save costs and ensure that the wells don’t interfere with one another, a prospect that would reduce their profitability. All those factors point to a need for bigger companies.

   Concho is paying a large premium for RSP, purchasing its assets for $76,000 per acre, according to Jefferies’ estimates. That price is significantly higher than in other recent deals in the Permian, in which prices were roughly $40,000 per acre or less.

   The deal would expand Concho’s Permian Basin footprint by about 92,000 acres and would give Concho 27 rigs, the basin’s biggest drilling program. Occidental Petroleum Corp. has the highest production from the area, but much of its output is from recovering oil out of older wells.

   Given its growth plans, Concho is on track to become the biggest producer in that region within a few years, and all of its operations involve newer, more advanced techniques.

   Shares of Concho fell more than 8% Wednesday following the announcement, while RSP shares gained more than 15%.

   The deal is expected to close in the third quarter and still requires shareholder and regulatory approval.

   https://www.wsj.com/articles/concho-resources-to-buy-rsp-permian-1522233884?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Concho Resources to Buy RSP Permian in $8 Billion West Texas Merger

   Mar 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

   By Jordan Blum

   Midland-based Concho Resources said it will pay $8 billion to buy West Texas rival RSP Permian in a merger that creates the largest shale driller in the booming Permian.

   While not a household name, the big sale makes Concho an even larger power player in the Permian Basin, which now accounts for more than half of all the oil drilling rigs in the entire country. RSP Permian is based out of Dallas, but it's also focused just on West Texas and the parts of the Permian extending into New Mexico.

   Perfectly positioned to capitalize off the Permian shale boom from its Midland home, Concho has grown rapidly as one of the leaders in domestic oil production. Concho was valued on Wall Street at more than $23 billion before the deal was announced Wednesday.

   RSP, which was formed in 2010, was valued at about $6.2 billion before the sale.

   Concho Chairman and CEO Tim Leach said RSP Permian operates similarly to his company, so they should mesh together well to form one super Permian Basin player.

   "The RSP team built an exceptional high-margin asset portfolio consistent with our playbook – large, contiguous positions in the core of the Permian Basin," Leach said. "And they did so with a strategy of maximizing well performance and returns, which provides substantial running room for continuous development with large-scale projects.

   "This combination allows us to consolidate premier assets that seamlessly fold into our drilling program, enhance our scale advantage and reinforce our leadership position in the Permian Basin, all while strengthening our platform for delivering predictable growth and returns," he added.

   After independent producers in West Texas like Concho and RSP helped lead the initial Permian shale boom, the focus switched last year to Big Oil players like Exxon Mobil and Chevron beefing up their Permian positions. Now, Concho is taking action to stake its claim as the leader in Permian shale, especially in the unconventional production that combines horizontal drilling techniques with hydraulic fracturing, called fracking, to produce oil and gas from the hard-to-crack shale rock.

   Energy analyst David Kistler, of Piper Jaffrey & Co., said Concho is successfully increasing the scale and scope of its already enviable Permian position. At the same time, RSP Permian shareholders should benefit from great value generated by the sale, he added.

   RELATED: Concho shakes up Permian holdings

   However, the sale is happening at a time when investors are asking for discipline and shying away from forking out a lot of extra dollars. As such, the initial Wall Street reaction was down on Concho's big move. Concho's stock dipped about 8 percent in early Wednesday morning trading. Likewise, RSP Permian stock jumped more than 15 percent.

   RSP Permian will give Concho nearly 100,000 more net acres in the Permian, increasing its overall position to about 640,000 net acres. The combined company would have 27 active drilling rigs operating in the Permian.

   Apart from the $8 billion sale, Concho also will assume about $1.5 billion in RSP Permian debt.

   https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Concho-Resources-to-buy-RSP-Permian-in-8-billion-12787416.php
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Here's the Strategy Behind Cities' Lawsuits Against Big Oil

   Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Anne C. Mulkern

   Lawsuits seeking to make oil companies pay for climate-related damages in California could go forward in both state and federal courts, after judges issued split decisions on where the cases belong.

   That could give cities and counties behind the claims multiple chances to win. Oil companies need to prevent even one loss to avoid a powerful precedent, legal experts said.

   "You have a bunch of different judges. If one of them holds the defendants liable even if [others] don't, that is a huge victory for plaintiffs seeking to establish the defendants are responsible for the harms," said Ann Carlson, co-director of UCLA School of Law's Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

   Eight California cities and counties have sued multiple oil companies in separate cases, arguing that combustion of fossil fuels contributes to sea-level rise and other costly impacts. The oil companies petitioned to move the cases to federal court, arguing there were federal issues. That happened automatically. Cities and counties sought to return the cases to state court.

   Two federal judges — located two floors apart at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco — reached different conclusions. Judge William Alsup said late last month that climate change is a global problem, making federal law more appropriate. He kept lawsuits filed by San Francisco and Oakland in his court, against Chevron Corp., BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.

   Then District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled on March 16 that lawsuits from Imperial Beach, San Mateo and Marin County against 26 fossil fuel companies and trade associations should go back to state court. He said that federal common law does not govern their claims. He's also handling suits from Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County against more than two dozen oil defendants. A decision on whether to return those to state court is pending.

   Oil companies and other defendants Monday filed paperwork asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Chhabria's decision sending the Imperial Beach, San Mateo and Marin County cases back to state court.

   "Given the global implications of the lawsuits and the billions of dollars at stake, it would make no sense for both sets of cases to proceed simultaneously, with one set in state court and one set in federal court," the defendants said in a motion filed with Chhabria's court. The 9th Circuit should weigh in "before these cases go back to state court, raising the risk of inconsistent outcomes in these cases and the nearly identical cases being litigated on the merits before Judge Alsup."

   If some of the cases ultimately return to state court, "this is actually about the best outcome for the cities," said Dan Farber, professor of environmental law at the University of California, Berkeley. While it increases their litigation expenses, "it gives them two different bites of the apple" with state and federal judges. "The plaintiffs get to bring cases under different sets of rules and sort of give it a shot both ways."

   The stakes potentially are very large, Carlson said. In lawsuits against tobacco companies for harms caused by their products, multiple plaintiffs lost case after case. But when one plaintiff finally won, "that just changed the entire picture."

   Similarly, one victory for the cities in these cases "has the potential to set off a cascade of lawsuits that establish liability and could costs the defendants billions of dollars," Carlson said. "It's why they're fighting these cases so hard."

   Oil companies want all the cases thrown out. They've filed motions to dismiss the suits from San Francisco and Oakland in Alsup's court. ConocoPhillips said the suits lacked jurisdiction because the company is headquartered in Houston. Chevron, based in California, cited prior climate-related cases that lost in federal courts.

   Chevron spokesman Sean Comey said in an email that the cities' suits "should not proceed in any court, state or federal."

   "Chevron welcomes meaningful efforts to address the issue of climate change, but litigation is not an appropriate tool for accomplishing that objective," he said. "Under the Clean Air Act, the responsibility for regulating greenhouse gas emissions has been assigned to the EPA. The relief Plaintiffs seek would require the court to unilaterally change the nation's energy and environmental policies. That would be improper and unconstitutional."New issues raised

   The lawsuits charge that oil products are a public nuisance. It's an "unsettled area of the law" with no direct precedents, Farber said. That makes the federal judges' conflicting rulings not as surprising.

   "Where they think the law is unclear, different judges can have different views," Farber said. "That happens all the time. We don't see it in such high-profile cases all the time."

   In addition, the cities and counties claim that the companies knew for decades that their products contributed to climate change and hid that information, while making business changes to protect their profits. That's different from a basic public nuisance lawsuit, said Michael Wara, director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University.

   "There's not a lot of clarity about how it will play out," Wara said. "It's raising a whole bunch of new issues under federal law and state law."

   Unless the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses Chhabria, the cases he ordered back to state court will be assigned to different judges in four Superior courthouses, in Santa Cruz, San Mateo County, Marin County and Contra Costa County.

   Eventually they might be moved to a single courtroom, said a lawyer at the firm Sher Edling LLP. It's handling the cases from Imperial Beach, San Mateo, Marin County, Richmond, Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County. Vic Sher, partner at Sher Edling, welcomed the order returning the cases to state court.

   "We believe, as did Judge Chhabria, that these cases do not satisfy any of the legal criteria for proceeding in federal court," Sher said. "It makes no sense to spend time and resources trying the cases in federal court only to have the appellate courts — whether the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court — determine at the end that they should have been in state court all along."

   It's not uncommon to have cases in both state and federal courts, Sher said.

   "The import, in sharp contrast to the fossil fuel industry's position, is that the courts are appropriate places to deal with who should pay for the necessary planning and adaptation costs," Sher said.State court vs. federal

   There's good reasons for the cities and counties to keep the cases in state court, and for the oil companies to want federal court, legal experts said.

   "California nuisance law is really probably the most favorable pro-plaintiff nuisance law in the country," Carlson said. "That's not going to be true for federal common law."

   Under California nuisance law, "efforts to deceive the public about the harms that a product can cause, or to hide negative information, or to engage in a campaign to prevent regulation of that product is relevant," Carlson added.

   That could become a factor with the municipalities' claims that the oil companies knew about the threat of global warming and funded campaigns to try to undermine the credibility of climate science, Carlson said.

   Federal court, in comparison, has much narrower rules around nuisance law. It's not clear that any evidence related to what the companies knew and didn't disclose about climate change would be relevant under federal nuisance law, she said. There isn't a federal statute "that really defined what nuisance is."

   The lawsuits contain other charges that would be relevant in state court. Those include product liability claims. California law allows damages for liability related to failure to warn consumers if a product is harmful, Carlson said.

   In the federal cases, the oil companies and their allies argue that the Clean Air Act governs greenhouse gas emissions. That "displaces," or cancels out, the nuisance claims at the federal level.

   They cite cases such as American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, in which states sought to cap utility emissions. That case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions because EPA regulates those through the Clean Air Act.

   However, Carlson, Farber and others said that Alsup appeared to indicate AEP is not a barrier in his order to keep the San Francisco and Oakland cases in federal court. That's because the oil companies are not the ones emitting, unlike the utilities in the AEP case.

   In state court, the AEP case is less of a factor. The Supreme Court in its ruling "was very careful not to say anything about a state nuisance claim," Wara said. The high court left open the question of what happens at the state level, he said.

   That's why the municipalities hope that their cases are eventually heard by the California Supreme Court.

   "State court is going to be open to the idea of doing something that's kind of unprecedented," Farber said. "It's going to be hard to get the [U.S.] Supreme Court to be activist on the climate change issue."

   https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077579
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. ConocoPhillips Agrees to Disclose Lobbying Info

   Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Benjamin Hulac

   ConocoPhillips reached a deal with shareholders to disclose more information about its political lobbying activities.

   The company agreed to share details online about its grass-roots, state and federal lobbying, as well as its membership in trade associations, according to Tim Smith, director of ESG Shareowner Engagement at Walden Asset Management.

   "You'll see dollar amounts, you'll see who its trade associations are," Smith said by phone.

   ConocoPhillips will also publish information about its state and federal activities, he said. "But you probably won't get a breakdown on bill X or Y."

   The company will also list a sum of all the money it has given to trade groups to whom it pays $50,000 or more in dues, according to Smith.

   "ConocoPhillips is committed to engaging in constructive and meaningful conversations with stockholders and to building and managing long-term relationships based on mutual trust and respect," spokesman Daren Beaudo said by email. "Members of management met with the stockholders who submitted this proposal to discuss their concerns."

   Political spending in corporate America has emerged as a point of leverage for climate and stockholder groups in recent years. Negotiations have expanded between companies and their stockholders about issues like climate change, and whether corporate expenditures are in line with the views of its activist shareholders.

   ConocoPhillips made the deal in response to a shareholder resolution filed by Walden and 20 outside investment groups. In a statement, the groups said they would withdraw their resolution. And the agreement marks an incremental change for ConocoPhillips, which has rebuffed previous efforts by stockholders who want to know where their money goes.

   ConocoPhillips last year told shareholders to vote against Walden's lobbying resolution.

   The company instead advised its activist shareholders to sift through lobbying reports filed by ConocoPhillips in Washington, D.C., with the House and Senate — a difficult and time-consuming process.

   ConocoPhillips will make the disclosures online as early as Friday, Smith said.

   The veteran shareholder advocate has negotiated with companies through resolutions for decades. The issue of political money is drawing more attention than it used to, he said.

   "There's a lot more scrutiny," Smith said.

   Much of that attention has come from Senate Democrats, some of whom want the Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose their political spending.

   During a heated exchange in 2016 before the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sharply criticized Mary Jo White, chairwoman of the SEC at the time, for failing to enforce political spending disclosures.

   "I just don't get why corporations that give money shouldn't tell their shareholders, these are major decisions, they have effects on the corporations," Schumer said.

   "If Exxon, and I'm just picking one, I have no idea what they do undisclosed, but if they put a ton of money of undisclosed into the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce to fight global warming — let's just assume that — their shareholders have a right to know they may be making a bad decision," he said.

   Schumer added, "I think you're hurting America. ... You are hurting America."

   Researchers like the London-based InfluenceMap have cropped up to study how companies spend their money to influence climate policy.

   A recent report by InfluenceMap, which is nonpartisan, found Australian oil and gas companies funneled millions to a trade group in order to fight climate policies (Climatewire, April 14, 2016).

   At the same hearing, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) laid out the standard conservative view on the matter.

   Attempts to force the commission to expand what it regulates are driven by "special interest" groups, he said (Climatewire, Sept. 21, 2016).

   "Such efforts include attempts to force the SEC to mandate disclosure on climate change and political contributions," Shelby said.

   https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077595
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Utilities, Northeast States Clash Over Proof For EPA Interstate Air Petitions

   Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Stuart Parker

   Electric utilities and Northeastern states are clashing over the standard of proof states must meet in order to succeed with Clean Air Act petitions asking for direct federal regulation of air pollution sources in one state that are hindering another state's ability to attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) such as the ozone NAAQS.

   In recent written comments, utility Talen Energy and the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing the power sector, say Connecticut's June 2016 petition, filed under Clean Air Act section 126, falls short of the standard of proof necessary. Among the flaws that the utilities claim are that the state used an inadequate emissions modeling platform to justify its request, and that the petition is not corroborated by air pollution monitoring data.

   However, Connecticut, other Northeast states and environmentalists back the petition, saying the data are accurate and that the agency has already missed a 60-day air law deadline to finalize a response to the request.

   EPA last month proposed to deny Connecticut's petition for the agency to regulate a Pennsylvania power plant's emissions, and took written comment on the proposal through March 26.

   Under section 126, states may petition EPA to directly regulate individual emissions sources in other states that they claim are contributing “significantly” to their problems attaining NAAQS. EPA proposed to deny Connecticut's petition Feb. 22 under a federal district court-ordered deadline, which gives the agency until April 8 to make a final decision. Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) is already threatening to sue EPA should it finalize the denial.

   Connecticut petitioned EPA to limit ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from Talen Energy's Brunner Island, PA, power plant, based on claims that the plant causes problems on the coast with attainment of ozone NAAQS. The petition is one of several from East Coast states seeking regulation of sources upwind, including petitions from Maryland and New York seeking regulation of dozens of power plants in upwind states.

   But EPA has historically been very slow to consider such petitions, missing statutory review deadlines by many months, and is equally reluctant to approve them. New Jersey did successfully petition EPA for regulation of a Pennsylvania power plant that was causing problems with sulfur dioxide NAAQS attainment in the Garden State, but industry groups say Connecticut's petition falls short of the proof offered by New Jersey in that case.

   “In responding to all prior section 126 petitions, EPA has consistently observed that the petitioner bears the burden under section 126(b) of providing sufficient evidence to establish every element of the applicable standard. By contrast, section 126(b) does not require EPA to conduct an independent technical analysis to evaluate claims made in section 126(b) petitions. Nor is EPA obligated to prepare an analysis to supplement a petition that fails to include an initial technical demonstration in the first instance,” Talen Energy says.

   Alleged Deficiencies

   The company lists a series of alleged technical deficiencies with Connecticut's analysis, which relies in large part on the methodology and air quality modeling that EPA previously conducted to support its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program to cut NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants.

   The CSAPR method considers a contribution to NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance to be “significant” if it is at least one percent of the NAAQS -- here, 0.7 parts per billion (ppb), one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. But industry groups say this does not readily translate to a determination about one particular source.

   Talen Energy says the petition relies on an inappropriate and inadequately supported modeling platform; incorrectly applies the “significant contribution” standard as appropriately interpreted by EPA; does not include any corroborating monitoring data; fails to account for numerous emission sources that are more likely to contribute to ambient impacts within Connecticut; and relies on significantly outdated emission source information.

   UARG in its comments makes similar points, claiming Connecticut's emissions information is outdated and inaccurate. With respect to the Talen Energy plant, EPA based its determination in large part on the plant for the first time in 2017 burning low-emitting natural gas, rather than coal, but this switch is not accounted-for in Connecticut's petition.

   UARG faults Connecticut's reliance on CSAPR modeling -- which applied to all NOx sources and also volatile organic compounds sources in the whole state of Pennsylvania -- to target a single source.

   Further, “Connecticut relied in the petition on outdated emission data from 2011, which are not representative of current or future NOx emissions and are uninformative with respect to current or reasonably expected downwind ozone concentrations,” according to the comments. EPA has “extraordinarily broad discretion” to weigh section 126 petitions, with the onus on petitioners to prove their case, UARG says.

   Petition Support

   But Connecticut, supporting environmental groups, lawmakers and other Northeast states in their comments argue that EPA cannot unlawfully delay its response to a petition far beyond the statutory 60-day limit, then reject the petition on the grounds that its underlying data is outdated.

   The Connecticut Fund for the Environment in its March 6 comments focuses on the effect of EPA's delayed response. “EPA's position on the data submitted by Connecticut completely ignores the fact that when Connecticut originally filed its Petition in June, 2016, it was based on the most current data. EPA should not be allowed to use its improper 32 month delay in acting upon Connecticut's Petition to now argue that it does not believe that the data provides a current, reasonable estimate of how much NOx pollution Brunner Island emits,” the group says.

   Meanwhile, Connecticut lawmakers, led by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D) and Chris Murphy (D), in a Feb. 23 letter to EPA say, “It is unacceptable that EPA failed to respond to Connecticut's petition until now -- a clear violation of the time period intended by the U.S. Congress. It is equally unacceptable that at this late date, EPA now proposes to deny the petition without providing an enforceable remedy to address Connecticut's air pollution problem.”

   In its March 26 comments on the proposed denial, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection takes issue with the accuracy of EPA modeling showing the state attaining ozone NAAQS by 2023, and says it is irrelevant in any case because the state has to comply with NAAQS before then. Nor can EPA apply a different interpretation of “significant contribution” from the CSAPR framework, the state argues.

   Connecticut argues that the Brunner Island plant's voluntary switch to using gas is not an adequate substitute for “enforceable” regulation to ensure that NOx levels stay low.

   New York State in its March 26 comments notes that both it and Connecticut must attain the less-stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb by July this year, and that EPA's projections with respect to attainment in 2023 are not adequate.

   Further, “New York disagrees with EPA's assertion that the use of cost-based criteria to quantify the amount of a linked upwind state's emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance . . . is appropriate for evaluation” under section 126.

   The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a state regulators' group, says that EPA's approach is inconsistent with that taken in the Obama administration's approval of the New Jersey SO2-based petition. The approach “contradicts EPA's previous approach in analyzing a section 126 petition submitted by New Jersey for SO2 emissions from the Portland Generating Station in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. In approving that petition, EPA determined that 'it is reasonable and appropriate to model allowable emissions when evaluating whether the source emits or would emit' any air pollutant in violation of” the air law under a section 126 petition.

   But EPA in its proposed denial of Connecticut's petition relies on a voluntary, and perhaps temporary, switch to burning gas, not a measure of “allowable emissions,” the group says.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/utilities-northeast-states-clash-over-proof-epa-interstate-air-petitions
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. A Year After Trump's Energy Order, Rollbacks Inch Forward

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Ellen M. Gilmer

    Suspense built for weeks in the lead-up to President Trump's "energy independence" executive order last year.

    Would it single out the Obama administration's landmark climate regulation? Would it cast a broader net, entangling other environmental rules and initiatives carefully crafted over the previous eight years? Would it get delayed, yet again?

    A year ago today, the president appeared onstage in U.S. EPA headquarters in Washington and answered those questions with a crushing blow to his predecessor's environmental legacy. Flanked by coal miners and Cabinet officials ready to flex their deregulatory muscle, Trump signed the "energy independence" order aimed at boosting domestic fossil fuels by lifting regulatory burdens on the coal and oil and gas industries.

    The order was sweeping, setting the stage for a push toward "energy dominance" the administration has since prioritized. The decree targeted the Obama administration's embattled Clean Power Plan, along with a slew of safety and environmental regulations for oil and gas production and coal leasing.

    During its unveiling, Trump hailed the order as the start of "a new era of energy" that would "really lead to unbelievable prosperity all throughout our country" (Climatewire, March 29, 2017).

    Many Democrats and environmentalists, meanwhile, saw doom. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the order a "declaration of war" against clean energy and climate science, and others readied for battle in the courts and agencies.

    Indeed, the executive order set off a cascade of deregulatory actions. But most of those remain snarled in litigation today.

    Here's where the key rollbacks stand.Clean Power Plan

    The most high-profile piece of Trump's executive order was its decree that EPA rethink the Clean Power Plan. The regulation was the Obama administration's marquee effort to address greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

    The rule has been stayed by a Supreme Court order since 2016, and the agency last fall unveiled a proposal to fully rescind it. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hasn't yet committed to replacing the Clean Power Plan with a narrower regulation, but many expect the agency to eventually take that approach.

    Since October, EPA has fielded comments from stakeholders on all sides of the debate and just wrapped up a series of listening sessions across the country (Climatewire, March 27).

    Litigation over the Clean Power Plan is on pause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments in 2016 but agreed to put the case on hold while Trump officials work on the rollback. When EPA finalizes its rescission, new litigation is expected to follow.

    One less controversial climate rule from the Obama administration — carbon emissions standards for new and modified power plants — remains in effect, with litigation on hold. The regulation has limited reach, however, as industry has shown little interest in building new plants. EPA told the D.C. Circuit in January that it is still reviewing the rule.Fracking rule

    The "energy independence" order also sought to roll back regulations seen as burdensome to energy production on public lands. One target: Obama-era standards for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands.

    The fracking rule had been on a litigation roller coaster since its unveiling in 2015. A federal district court sidelined the rule two years ago, but the previous administration was pushing back against that decision in an appeal.

    The Trump administration shifted gears last spring and fully rescinded the regulation in December. BLM argued that while the agency has authority to regulate fracking, it need not do so because states have the production technique covered.

    California and a coalition of environmentalists quickly sued over the rollback, and the case is moving forward slowly in a federal district court in California (Energywire, Jan. 25).

    Industry groups and the state of Wyoming have moved to defend the rescission of the rule. BLM and its allies are pushing to move the case to Wyoming, seen as a friendlier venue.EPA methane standards

    The Trump administration has had a tougher time unwinding standards for methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.

    U.S. EPA's attempt to roll back Obama-era requirements for new and modified oil and gas sites last year was reversed by the D.C. Circuit last summer.

    Since then, the agency has floated a proposal for a two-year freeze but hasn't yet finalized it. Other than technical tweaks announced earlier this month, the Obama standards are fully in force.BLM methane rule

    Trump officials tried several times last year to kill the Obama administration's standards to cut natural gas waste on public and tribal lands. After a few failed attempts, BLM announced plans for a detailed rewrite that would scrap core pieces of the regulation.

    BLM's revisions, revealed earlier this year, would effectively roll back elements of the rule the agency had previously proposed to delay. BLM justified the proposal with a cost-benefit analysis touting net benefits rooted in reduced compliance costs for oil and gas companies. The calculations severely discounted the social cost of emitting more methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

    Earlier efforts to sideline the standards have been messy. An attempt to nullify the methane rule via the Congressional Review Act narrowly failed last spring. And federal judges have since knocked down two agency efforts to pause the requirements or delay compliance deadlines.

    Today, the Obama rule is in full force, but oil and gas industry lawyers are working feverishly to persuade another court to neutralize it. Industry groups say many companies aren't prepared to comply and shouldn't be forced to do so in light of the administration's latest effort to scale back the standards (Energywire, March 1).Oil and gas rules for other public lands

    Aside from the BLM fracking and methane standards, Trump's executive order explicitly targeted two other Interior oil and gas rules.

    The department has yet to propose changes to the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service regulations that govern non-federal oil and gas rights beneath land overseen by those agencies.

    Interior may even skip revisions to the NPS rule, which wasn't mentioned in a review of departmentwide actions that could stifle domestic energy development (Energywire, Nov. 3, 2017).

    FWS is still examining its requirements for oil and gas extraction in wildlife refuges, according to the review, which was published last fall.Coal leasing

    Trump's order also called for an immediate end to the Obama administration's moratorium on new federal coal leasing. Obama officials temporarily halted leasing to conduct a high-level review of programs in light of market changes and climate change.

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke promptly reversed his predecessor's plan by scrapping the review and calling for a leasing restart. So far, though, that decision hasn't yielded major results. Interior approved leases for about 40 million tons of coal under Trump last year. At the same time, coal companies have withdrawn applications for 901 million tons (E&E News PM, Jan. 29).

    Meanwhile, the agency is facing continued scrutiny for its analysis of leasing's impacts. With the Obama administration's plans for a refreshed programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) scuttled, environmentalists are calling on federal courts to intervene.

    Last week, the D.C. Circuit appeared receptive to groups' arguments that Interior needs to revisit the existing environmental analysis, which was drafted in 1979. A separate case is working its way through a federal district court in Montana (Energywire, March 26).

    Reporters Pamela King and Dylan Brown contributed.

    See below for an annotated version of the executive order, or click here for a PDF version.Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    - - - - - - -

    PROMOTING ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  (a)  It is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation.  Moreover, the prudent development of these natural resources is essential to ensuring the Nation's geopolitical security.

    (b)  It is further in the national interest to ensure that the Nation's electricity is affordable, reliable, safe, secure, and clean, and that it can be produced from coal, natural gas, nuclear material, flowing water, and other domestic sources, including renewable sources. The order sets out lofty goals for promoting development of all types of energy, but its recommended regulatory rollbacks focus on streamlining fossil fuel development.

    (c)  Accordingly, it is the policy of the United States that executive departments and agencies (agencies) immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. 

    (d)  It further is the policy of the United States that, to the extent permitted by law, all agencies should take appropriate actions to promote clean air and clean water for the American people, while also respecting the proper roles of the Congress and the States concerning these matters in our constitutional republic.

    (e)  It is also the policy of the United States that necessary and appropriate environmental regulations comply with the law, are of greater benefit than cost, when permissible, achieve environmental improvements for the American people, and are developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics.  

    Sec. 2.  Immediate Review of All Agency Actions that Potentially Burden the Safe, Efficient Development of Domestic Energy Resources.  (a)  The heads of agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.  Such review shall not include agency actions that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. 

    (b)  For purposes of this order, "burden" means to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.This clause gives the order broader reach, prompting regulatory reviews from many agencies beyond U.S. EPA and the Interior Department.

    (c)  Within 45 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency with agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section shall develop and submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Director) a plan to carry out the review required by subsection (a) of this section.  The plans shall also be sent to the Vice President, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.  The head of any agency who determines that such agency does not have agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section shall submit to the OMB Director a written statement to that effect and, absent a determination by the OMB Director that such agency does have agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section, shall have no further responsibilities under this section.

    (d)  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall submit a draft final report detailing the agency actions described in subsection (a) of this section to the Vice President, the OMB Director, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.  The report shall include specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production.  

    (e)  The report shall be finalized within 180 days of the date of this order, unless the OMB Director, in consultation with the other officials who receive the draft final reports, extends that deadline.  Some agencies, including U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Department of Energy, began to make their regulatory reviews public last year.

    (f)  The OMB Director, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, shall be responsible for coordinating the recommended actions included in the agency final reports within the Executive Office of the President.

    (g)  With respect to any agency action for which specific recommendations are made in a final report pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, the head of the relevant agency shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding, those actions, as appropriate and consistent with law.  Agencies shall endeavor to coordinate such regulatory reforms with their activities undertaken in compliance with Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs).

    Sec. 3.  Rescission of Certain Energy and Climate-Related Presidential and Regulatory Actions.  (a)  The following Presidential actions are hereby revoked: 

    (i)    Executive Order 13653 of November 1, 2013 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change); 

    (ii)   The Presidential Memorandum of June 25, 2013 (Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards);

    (iii)  The Presidential Memorandum of November 3, 2015 (Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment); and

    (iv)   The Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016 (Climate Change and National Security).

    (b)  The following reports shall be rescinded: 

    (i)   The Report of the Executive Office of the President of June 2013 (The President's Climate Action Plan); and

    (ii)  The Report of the Executive Office of the President of March 2014 (Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions).

    (c)  The Council on Environmental Quality shall rescind its final guidance entitled "Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews," which is referred to in "Notice of Availability," 81 Fed. Reg. 51866 (August 5, 2016).

    (d)  The heads of all agencies shall identify existing agency actions related to or arising from the Presidential actions listed in subsection (a) of this section, the reports listed in subsection (b) of this section, or the final guidance listed in subsection (c) of this section.  Each agency shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding any such actions, as appropriate and consistent with law and with the policies set forth in section 1 of this order.  

    Sec. 4.  Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan" and Related Rules and Agency Actions.  (a)  The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Administrator) shall immediately take all steps necessary to review the final rules set forth in subsections (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of this section, and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to them, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules.  In addition, the Administrator shall immediately take all steps necessary to review the proposed rule set forth in subsection (b)(iii) of this section, and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, determine whether to revise or withdraw the proposed rule.

    (b)  This section applies to the following final or proposed rules:

    (i)    The final rule entitled "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64661 (October 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan);The Trump administration has formally proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan but has not yet decided whether it will replace the regulation. The agency fielded public comments over the past several months and held a final listening session March 27 in Wyoming.

    (ii)   The final rule entitled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64509 (October 23, 2015); andThe new source rule is still in effect. EPA is reviewing it but has not announced a plan for action.

    (iii)  The proposed rule entitled "Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations; Proposed Rule," 80 Fed. Reg. 64966 (October 23, 2015).

    (c)  The Administrator shall review and, if appropriate, as soon as practicable, take lawful action to suspend, revise, or rescind, as appropriate and consistent with law, the "Legal Memorandum Accompanying Clean Power Plan for Certain Issues," which was published in conjunction with the Clean Power Plan.  

    (d)  The Administrator shall promptly notify the Attorney General of any actions taken by the Administrator pursuant to this order related to the rules identified in subsection (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as appropriate, provide notice of this order and any such action to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to those rules, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, pending the completion of the administrative actions described in subsection (a) of this section.  

    Sec. 5.  Review of Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon, Nitrous Oxide, and Methane for Regulatory Impact Analysis.  (a)  In order to ensure sound regulatory decision making, it is essential that agencies use estimates of costs and benefits in their regulatory analyses that are based on the best available science and economics.  

    (b)  The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), which was convened by the Council of Economic Advisers and the OMB Director, shall be disbanded, and the following documents issued by the IWG shall be withdrawn as no longer representative of governmental policy:In light of the working group’s disbandment, the Bureau of Land Management’s now-overturned plan to delay many provisions of its methane rule used “interim values” on the social cost of methane until an “improved estimate” can be developed. The proposed Clean Power Plan repeal also reworked the social cost of carbon analysis.

    (i)    Technical Support Document:  Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (February 2010); 

    (ii)   Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (May 2013);

    (iii)  Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (November 2013); 

    (iv)   Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (July 2015); 

    (v)    Addendum to the Technical Support Document for Social Cost of Carbon:  Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide (August 2016); and

    (vi)   Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis (August 2016). 

    (c)  Effective immediately, when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations, including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount rates, agencies shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that any such estimates are consistent with the guidance contained in OMB Circular A-4 of September 17, 2003 (Regulatory Analysis), which was issued after peer review and public comment and has been widely accepted for more than a decade as embodying the best practices for conducting regulatory cost-benefit analysis.

    Sec. 6.  Federal Land Coal Leasing Moratorium.  The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps necessary and appropriate to amend or withdraw Secretary's Order 3338 dated January 15, 2016 (Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to Modernize the Federal Coal Program), and to lift any and all moratoria on Federal land coal leasing activities related to Order 3338.  The Secretary shall commence Federal coal leasing activities consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. Interior immediately lifted the Obama administration’s federal coal leasing freeze in March but industry interest in new leases has been light.

    Sec. 7.  Review of Regulations Related to United States Oil and Gas Development.  (a)  The Administrator shall review the final rule entitled "Oil and Natural Gas Sector:  Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources," 81 Fed. Reg. 35824 (June 3, 2016), and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to it, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules. EPA tried but failed to stall the Obama administration’s methane standards for new oil and gas. The rule is now in effect while EPA considers a broader rollback. The agency made small tweaks to the measures earlier this year.

    (b)  The Secretary of the Interior shall review the following final rules, and any rules and guidance issued pursuant to them, for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules: 

    (i)    The final rule entitled "Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands," 80 Fed. Reg. 16128 (March 26, 2015);Interior rolled back the fracking rule in December. That decision is now facing pushback from environmentalists in court.

    (ii)   The final rule entitled "General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights," 81 Fed. Reg. 77972 (November 4, 2016);

    (iii)  The final rule entitled "Management of Non Federal Oil and Gas Rights," 81 Fed. Reg. 79948 (November 14, 2016); andInterior has made no announcements on these rules. Efforts to repeal under the Congressional Review Act failed. Interior did not mention the first rule in its review of department actions that potentially burden domestic energy production. Revisions to the second rule were still under consideration as of last fall, according to the department review.

    (iv)   The final rule entitled "Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation," 81 Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18, 2016).After an unsuccessful Congressional Review Act push, Interior tried twice to delay the Bureau of Land Management’s methane rule, but both attempts were rejected in court. Now the agency is working on a broader rollback of most of the regulation.

    (c)  The Administrator or the Secretary of the Interior, as applicable, shall promptly notify the Attorney General of any actions taken by them related to the rules identified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section so that the Attorney General may, as appropriate, provide notice of this order and any such action to any court with jurisdiction over pending litigation related to those rules, and may, in his discretion, request that the court stay the litigation or otherwise delay further litigation, or seek other appropriate relief consistent with this order, until the completion of the administrative actions described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section.  

    Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or 

    (ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. 

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE, 
        March 28, 2017.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077573
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Who's on Trump's Energy Team Now?

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Zack Colman and Robin Bravender

    There's a new energy and climate team at the White House.

    During the tumultuous stretch of staff turnover at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., several top aides who played key roles in overseeing energy and environmental issues headed for the exits. The uncertainty sparked frustration among White House staffers who wondered how the shake-ups would affect their jobs. It also flustered outsiders who were wary of losing the allies they had cultivated and weren't sure how their replacements might steer policies.

    "You hate to spend a lot of time educating and then have them leave," said Lee Fuller, a lobbyist for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

    But President Trump has moved quickly, bringing in new aides to fill some of the vacancies.

    The new additions consist of longtime Trump allies who — along with the established team of White House energy players — appear poised to stay the course on Trump's energy and climate agenda. Broadly, that means continuing a push to roll back domestic environmental regulations while expanding domestic energy production.

    "I'm optimistic, comfortable with some of the names that we have heard for these positions and those that are continuing on," said Scott Segal, an industry attorney at Bracewell LLP. "We still believe that the composition of the White House staff is indicative that energy issues are important and continue to be a priority for the administration."

    Here's a rundown of new arrivals and established aides who work on energy and climate policy in the Trump White House:The newcomers

    Wells Griffith

    Wells Griffith. Energy Department

    Title: On detail at the White House National Economic Council; principal deputy acting secretary for international affairs at the Energy Department

    Energy portfolio: Liquefied natural gas exports, international energy and climate portfolio on a three-month trial basis. Replaces George David Banks, who resigned in February.

    Resume: At the Energy Department, helped negotiate a deal to send 700,000 metric tons of coal from Pennsylvania to Ukraine. Oversaw bilateral energy talks with Mexico. Longtime politico, Trump campaign hand, former deputy chief of staff to then-Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus and one-time congressional candidate.

    Climate chops: "A work in progress" who has learned a lot in his first year of professional energy policy experience, according to an industry source.

    Landon Derentz

    Landon Derentz. Derentz/LinkedIn

    Title: He'll start next week on detail from the State Department to the National Economic Council, where he'll report to Griffith (E&E News PM, March 27).

    Energy portfolio: He'll help oversee international energy policy.

    Resume: Currently an energy policy adviser in the State Department's Bureau of Energy Resources. Prior to joining the State Department, he worked in the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from summer 2012 to May 2014 as a presidential management fellow. Before joining the federal government, Derentz worked as a summer associate at a California law firm.

    Climate chops: At State, he has specialized in global energy markets and the role of LNG in the global energy mix. He's also worked on Group of 20 energy policies, countering the Islamic State group's oil revenues, assessing the natural gas supply of U.S. allies, and opening markets to energy trade and investment, according to his online biography.

    Larry Kudlow

    Larry Kudlow. Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia

    Title: Incoming director of the National Economic Council

    Energy portfolio: Kudlow will oversee the NEC, where the Trump White House concentrates much of its domestic policy work, including energy issues.

    Resume: Longtime cable news contributor and former co-host of CNBC's "The Kudlow Report." Previously economics editor of the National Review, Bear Stearns Cos. Inc.'s chief economist and economist in the Reagan White House budget office.

    Climate chops: He has promoted climate skeptic talking points such as solar warming and increased solar activity driving temperatures higher. He also scoffed at former Vice President Al Gore's "global warming hysteria," argued that "imposing carbon caps or carbon taxes won't do anyone any good" and lauded Trump's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (Climatewire, March 13).

    Chris Liddell

    Chris Liddell. George Liddell/Wikipedia

    Title: Deputy chief of staff for policy coordination

    Energy portfolio: He reports to chief of staff John Kelly, broadly managing the White House policy process.

    Resume: He previously led the White House's efforts to modernize government information technology systems. Prior to joining the Trump team, he was chief financial officer at Microsoft Corp., International Paper Co. and General Motors Co.

    Climate chops: Liddell founded an environmental education foundation in his native New Zealand. The group, the Next Foundation, was launched in 2014 "to ensure our natural environment remains healthy so that it will continue to provide us with the essential resources that underpin a thriving and prosperous New Zealand," according to its website (Greenwire, March 19).

    John Bolton

    John Bolton. Gage Skidmore/Flickr

    Title: Incoming national security adviser

    Energy portfolio: As Trump's chief national security adviser within the White House, Bolton could have a significant influence over how the administration handles international energy policies and the security risks posed by climate change. Trump's outgoing national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, was involved in White House discussions about whether to exit the Paris climate accord.

    Resume: Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush who also served in the State and Justice departments during Republican administrations.

    Climate chops: Bolton called the decision to exit the Paris climate accord "excellent" because the global agreement presented "danger in the longer term." He has long been critical of international agreements, which he believes constrain national sovereignty (Climatewire, March 23).The veterans

    Mike Catanzaro

    Mike Catanzaro. Tom Williams

    Title: Special assistant to the president for domestic energy and environmental policy

    Energy portfolio: "This White House has sort of sequestered domestic energy advice in the National Economic Council, and while the director of the council has changed, the staff working the issues has not," said Segal of Bracewell. "Mike Catanzaro is one of the brightest and most accomplished folks to serve in that capacity, and he continues soldiering on."

    Resume: Former lobbyist at CGCN Group, aide to then-House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on energy and environmental policy and to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Worked in the White House Council on Environmental Quality and at U.S. EPA during the Bush administration.

    Climate chops: Catanzaro is widely seen as the principal staffer working on White House domestic energy policy, and he's played a central role in EPA deregulatory efforts and other environmental issues.

    Mary Neumayr

    Mary Neumayr. @ec_minister/Twitter

    Title: Chief of staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality

    Energy portfolio: With no Senate-confirmed official in place, Neumayr has been leading the shop that's tasked with coordinating federal environmental agencies and overseeing implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

    Resume: Former senior energy counsel for Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, deputy general counsel for environment and nuclear programs at the Energy Department, and counsel to the assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Justice Department.

    Climate chops: Neumayr worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee under Republicans who perpetually took aim at the Obama administration's climate change policies. In April, she withdrew an Obama-era CEQ guidance document instructing federal agencies how to consider the impacts of climate change in their NEPA reviews.

    Everett Eissenstat

    Everett Eissenstat. Vince Alongi/Flickr

    Title: Deputy director of the National Economic Council and International Economic Affairs

    Energy portfolio: The nexus of international trade and energy. Currently, he's handling negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which carries significant implications for energy and climate change.

    Resume: Prior to joining the Trump White House, Eissenstat served as an assistant U.S. trade representative for the Western Hemisphere under then-President Obama. He was also a longtime Capitol Hill aide, including chief international trade counsel for Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

    Climate chops: Primed the ground for the G-20 meeting last summer in Hamburg, Germany, where the Trump administration doubled down on its Paris Agreement withdrawal. The communiqué following the conference was dubbed the G-19, as the United States refused to sign onto climate change language that called the Paris Agreement "irreversible."

    D.J. Gribbin

    D.J. Gribbin. Gribbin/LinkedIn

    Title: Special assistant to the president for infrastructure

    Energy portfolio: Architect of the Trump infrastructure plan, the top legislative agenda item for the president's second year in office, including many of its regulatory rollbacks.

    Resume: Transportation Department general counsel and Federal Highway Administration chief counsel under Bush. He was director of strategic consulting for architecture, engineering and consulting firm HDR Inc. prior to joining the administration. Gribbin is also a former managing director at investment banking firm Macquarie Capital, ex-director of public-sector business development for Koch Industries Inc., national field director for the Christian Coalition and legislative representative for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

    Climate chops: Climate change was absent from the infrastructure blueprint he led. Experts said failing to account for future climate conditions would endanger Americans and expose taxpayers to financial losses. Fought California's waiver to set more stringent greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles while in the Bush administration.

    Alex Herrgott

    Alex Herrgott. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Transportation and Logistics

    Title: Associate director for infrastructure at the Council on Environmental Quality

    Energy portfolio: Spearheads CEQ's Capitol Hill portfolio. Mainly responsible for crafting and promoting Trump's infrastructure plan, where his focus is on shortening and eliminating environmental regulations.

    Resume: A former Inhofe aide, Herrgott was seen as an instrumental player in passing large transportation and infrastructure bills when Inhofe was chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Prior to the Hill and administration, worked on transportation and infrastructure issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

    Climate chops: Although a longtime committee and personal aide to the Senate's most prominent climate skeptic, Herrgott is viewed as a policy pro who works across the aisle. While at the Chamber, he encouraged the Obama administration to convene nations in negotiations to address a European Union cap-and-trade system for plane travel after signing a law forbidding U.S. airlines from complying with it.

    Christopher Prandoni

    Title: Associate director for natural resources at CEQ

    Energy portfolio: Oversees public lands work, collaborating with other staff on enhancing the Trump administration's "energy dominance" agenda through access to energy resources.

    Resume: Most recently served as legislative aide to Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). Previously handled energy issues for the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform.

    Climate chops: Clean Power Plan opponent who argued that unilateral U.S. moves to reduce emissions would benefit competitors like China. Carbon tax critic, suggesting even revenue-neutral plans would not stay that way forever.

    Shahira Knight

    Title: Special assistant to the president for tax and retirement policy

    Energy portfolio: Dealt with myriad ways the tax code affects energy companies.

    Resume: A longtime House Ways and Means Committee staffer and former lobbyist whose clients included Koch Industries and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Knight was the brains behind Trump's most significant legislative victory — sweeping tax cuts. Before joining the White House, she was a vice president of policy and public affairs at Fidelity Investments and managing director of the Security Industry and Financial Markets Association.

    Climate chops: Whatever she's gleaned from tax extenders fights that happen like clockwork and the constant haggling over any number of energy industry incentives.

    Tristan Abbey

    Title: On detail at the National Security Council; senior analyst for policy at the Energy Department

    Energy portfolio: It's unclear how much longer Abbey will work explicitly on energy issues for the NSC. He's proved a valuable White House contact for energy companies.

    Resume: Former GOP aide for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Also worked as a research and trading associate for the Peter Thiel-founded hedge fund Clarium Capital Management LLC.

    Climate chops: As a Senate staffer, Abbey helped shepherd through legislation that ended a four-decade ban on exporting crude oil. Writing for The Stanford Review in college, Abbey spearheaded a series called "The Heart of the Matter" that pitted experts "on either side of a controversial issue" against each other. Abbey tackled climate change in one installment but encountered a problem: Several Stanford professors refused to participate because they said "there aren't two sides to climate change," he wrote.

    Francis Brooke

    Title: Associate director of policy for Vice President Mike Pence

    Energy portfolio: Energy issues for the vice president's office. Moderated the Trump administration's event at last November's U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany.

    Resume: A former Capitol Hill aide to Republican Kentuckians Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Rep. Andy Barr. Also interned for then-Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), who is now director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

    Climate chops: At the Bonn event moderated by Brooke, Trump officials and energy industry representatives advocated for natural gas, coal and advanced nuclear technology, arguing that fossil fuels would be a factor in the global economy for decades.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077591
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

12. Grid's Physical Safeguards 'A Work in Progress' — CRS

    Mar 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    The electric power industry's efforts to secure the grid remain "a work in progress" five years after an eye-opening attack on a California substation, according to congressional researchers.

    A new report from the Congressional Research Service credits major electric utilities for apparently hardening key facilities after one or more heavily armed attackers opened fire on Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s Metcalf substation in April 2013.

    Though it didn't cause a blackout, that coordinated assault signaled a "turning point" in grid security, CRS researcher Paul Parfomak noted in the report. But he added that lawmakers could find it challenging to track utilities' progress, given the secretive nature of security plans.

    "There is currently no comprehensive accounting of changes in physical security throughout the sector," he concluded. "Nonetheless, anecdotal information in the public domain suggests that such changes may be significant and widespread."

    The nonprofit North American Electric Reliability Corp. is responsible for overseeing the physical and cybersecurity of the bulk U.S. power grid, but few of its risk assessments, audits and enforcement actions are aired publicly.

    The Metcalf attack prompted regulators at NERC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to set new physical "critical infrastructure protection" standards in 2014, which required transmission owners to identify their most crucial facilities and develop plans to protect them.

    Parfomak said in the report that it is "probably accurate" to say that the standards have boosted grid defenses, but the industry "has not necessarily reached the level of physical security needed based on the sector's own assessments of risk."

    In other words, utilities haven't yet fully protected all the critical sites identified in their security plans — "although they may be well on the way to doing so," he clarified in an email.

    For its part, NERC claims to have observed "remarkable progress" with utilities' security plans and has yet to uncover any major failures, according to the report.

    NERC officials told CRS researchers in December that some companies have started to factor security into their transmission planning, in a bid "to reduce the criticality of particular transformer substations in congested areas by providing more transmission paths around them."

    A controversial FERC report leaked to the media in 2014 found that attackers could disable nine substations to cause a nationwide blackout (Energywire, March 14, 2014).Merging with cyber

    Parfomak cited anecdotal evidence that grid operators are treating physical security seriously, pointing out that two major manufacturers offer transformers with ballistic shielding to protect against Metcalf-style attacks.

    While he acknowledged that marketing "does not mean that many utilities are buying them" necessarily, he also pointed to "physical security specialist" job openings at the Tennessee Valley Authority and the appointment of senior-level chief security officers at PG&E, American Electric Power Co. Inc. and Xcel Energy Inc., among other transmission owners.

    "It appears that many utilities have been reconfiguring and elevating physical security functions within their corporate structures," he concluded.

    Andrew Bochman, senior cyber and energy security strategist at the Idaho National Laboratory, pointed out the importance of empowering chief security officers to manage hacking risks in addition to physical ones.

    "Physical and cyber security are merging as more of these physical systems are becoming computer- and network-based," he said.

    Appointing a "true" chief security officer "doesn't solve everything, but it gives the CEO a chance to have a common operating picture of security," Bochman said.

    Parfomak noted in the CRS report that the utility industry rehearses how companies and government agencies would respond to a combined cyber and physical attack during the biennial GridEx security exercises.

    He also pointed to the Department of Energy's newly minted Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response, aimed at guarding the grid "from cyber threats, physical attack and natural disaster."

    "How this reorganization will affect DOE's activities in bulk power physical security remains to be seen," Parfomak wrote.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077603
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EPA Stepping Up Cybersecurity Effort Following Recent Utility Attack

    Mar 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

    EPA is stepping up its effort to prepare water utilities for possible cybersecurity attacks in the wake of recent Russian government attacks on water utilities and other critical infrastructure.

    The agency is holding a free “Introduction to Cybersecurity Workshop” May 21 in Portland, ME, to help utility managers and technology staff better plan for and mitigate risks of cyber attacks.

    “Cybersecurity threats are real and they are here to stay,” EPA says, citing a March 15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alert detailing Russian government cyber attacks on the U.S. government and critical infrastructure.

    “EPA is sponsoring a free, one-day workshop with response exercises to inform water utilities more about the cyber threat, ways to manage the threat, and tools (such as [the American Water Works Association's] cybersecurity tool) available to help utilities,” the notice says. “The goal is to identify general planning or procedural actions that enhance cybersecurity and mitigate risk,”

    The workshop will include response exercises that will allow participants to discuss how they would respond to certain cyber threats, and also share lessons learned from several recent Virginia waterworks cyber assessments.

    The workshop comes after a DHS' Computer Emergency Readiness Team and FBI analysis found Russian cyber operatives targeting small facilities.

    “DHS and FBI characterize this activity as a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors who targeted small commercial facilities’ networks where they staged malware, conducted spear phishing, and gained remote access into energy sector networks,” the alert says.

    “After obtaining access, the Russian government cyber actors conducted network reconnaissance, moved laterally, and collected information pertaining to Industrial Control Systems.”

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-stepping-cybersecurity-effort-following-recent-utility-attack
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Los Alamos Lost Toxic Waste Containers for a Week

    Mar 28, 2018 | Santa Fe New Mexican (In E&E Greenwire)

    By Rebecca Moss

    Los Alamos National Laboratory misplaced two containers of chemical waste earlier this year, sending officials on a search that lasted a week, according to a newly released letter.

    The federal lab self-reported the incident to the New Mexico Environment Department three days after the waste was rediscovered Feb. 5, according to a letter dated March 19.

    The missing containers "caused some considerable resources to be devoted to finding them, and once we found them, we reported them duly," said lab spokesman Peter Hyde, adding that it was an isolated incident.

    But it's one in a string of mishaps involving hazardous waste and worker safety at Los Alamos and other national labs. The Department of Energy's inspector general last month knocked Los Alamos for failing to properly inventory its beryllium, a toxic metal used in nuclear weapons (E&E News PM, Feb. 23).

    The containers in the February incident were eventually discovered packed improperly in a 55-gallon drum. One contained silver-filled epoxy, a paste used in electrical work, and the other had toluene diisocyanate, a toxic chemical used in sealants.

    "We're still actively pursuing this matter," said Allison Majure, a spokeswoman for the state Environment Department. "Based on the results of our investigation, we will proceed accordingly."

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077633 

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Chemical Spill at Medical Clinic Sends 15 to Hospital

    Mar 28, 2018 | Chicago Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)

    By Kate Thayer

    A chemical spill at a Chicago-area medical clinic yesterday sent 15 people to the hospital with complaints of respiratory issues and nausea, fire officials said.

    Firefighters in Berwyn, Ill., responded to a call at the JenCare Senior Medical Center after a spill of phenol in an examination room, said Fire Chief Denis O'Halloran.

    Phenol is a chemical used in certain medical treatments and to kill bacteria. It has a "sickeningly sweet and tarry" odor, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    There were 35 people in the building at the time of the spill, and 15 were taken to nearby hospitals, O'Halloran said, adding that he was unsure of their condition.

    Frank Mancuso, president of JenCare in the Chicago market, said the clinic is "continuing to work with local authorities."

    "Caring for our patients and our staff is our number one priority, which is why we took the precautions of evacuating the facility, calling local authorities, and ensuring all who were present received appropriate medical examination," he said in a statement.

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/03/28/stories/1060077629
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

16. Poll: Partisanship in Global Warming Opinions Growing

    Mar 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    The partisan divide among American adults regarding climate change appears to be growing, according to a new poll.

    Sixty-nine percent of Republicans surveyed in a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they think the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, up from 66 percent a year ago.

    That compares with only 4 percent of Democrats who think concerns are exaggerated, down from 10 percent in 2017.

    Other key measures of climate change opinions showed similarly growing partisanship, Gallup said.

    Among Republicans, only 42 percent said that most scientists think global warming is occurring, 11 percentage points lower than last year. Democrats’ opinions on that question are the same as last year, with 86 percent agreeing.

    A similar pattern was found in questions regarding whether the effects of global warming have begun, whether global warming is caused by human activity and whether respondents worry a “great deal” or “fair amount” about warming.

    “President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a ‘hoax,’ may have contributed to this widening divide by reversing a number of government actions to address the issue,” Gallup said regarding the data.

    The polling firm noted several of Trump’s policy moves, including him deciding to pull out of the Paris agreement, eliminating climate change as a national security threat and removing mentions of climate and global warming from government websites.

    Still, the poll found that 45 percent of adults said global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes. While the answers were similarly partisan, the 45 percent figure is the highest since Gallup began asking climate questions in 1997.

    The latest survey of 1,041 adults was conducted March 1-8 via telephones with an overall margin of error of 4 percentage points.

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/380624-partisanship-in-global-warming-opinions-grows
    

    Return to headline | Return to top