Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/4/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Relied on Obscure Law to Hire Ex-Lobbyists, Schedulers and Spokesmen
Apr 3, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt hired at least two ex-lobbyists and several other aides for noncritical positions through an obscure provision in a water-safety law. -
AGs, Mayors Blast Pruitt's Rollback of Standards
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
Attorneys general from 12 states and mayors from 45 cities issued a declaration this afternoon opposing the Trump administration's decision to revise fuel economy standards. -
For Scott Pruitt, a Spotlight Shines on His Ethics, Not His E.P.A. Rollbacks
Apr 3, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Mr. Pruitt, the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, has sought to make his name as the Trump administration’s most effective eraser of regulations on American industry. On Tuesday, he formally announced his most sweeping regulatory rollback to date: a plan to weaken President Barack Obama’s stringent rules on planet-warming tailpipe emissions. -
Pruitt's Car Rule Revisions May Upend Auto Market
Apr 3, 2018 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
Scott Pruitt is trying to make life easier for automakers, but some worry his approach may backfire. -
Critics Of Trump '2-For-1' Rule Order Cite Harm From Agency Policy Delays
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Critics of President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) forcing EPA and other agencies to identify two existing rules for repeal for every new rule they issue are adding to their district court complaint over the EO, citing alleged harm from several agencies' delayed rulemaking efforts that the plaintiffs argue are a direct result of the order. -
Why Dining Out Can Increase Your Exposure to Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Apr 3, 2018 | Healthline
By Joni Sweet
If you’re trying to eat healthy, you know to avoid many restaurant meals that are high in fat and sodium. But now a new study has found there’s another potential risk to dining out: hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates. -
NGOs Push Lowe's on Methylene Chloride Paint Strippers
Apr 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGOs are applying increased pressure on Lowe's, and other major US home improvement retailers, to stop selling paint removal products containing methylene chloride. -
Germany's VCI Warns of 'Serious Consequences' from a Hard Brexit
Apr 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) has warned of the "immediate and particularly serious consequences" of a so-called hard Brexit on the European chemicals industry. -
Make Energy Infrastructure Great Again
Apr 3, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dylan Reed
President Trump has been vocal on the need to improve America’s infrastructure, and for good reason. -
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Expected to Rise in Colorado
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oil and gas regulators in Colorado anticipate a rise in the number of orphaned wells as some drillers go out of business. -
Another Sign of Permian Boom: Record Electricity Demand
Apr 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
In West Texas, an oil and gas drilling rush has overwhelmed local roadways, housing supplies and a limited pipeline network. Now, the shale boom is straining the region’s electric grid, which was designed to handle a fraction of the power needed by the oil and gas producers that dominate the West Texas economy. -
Third Gas Pipeline Data System Shuts a Day After Cyberattack
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
A third U.S. pipeline company reported its electronic system for communicating with customers has stopped working, a day after a cyberattack resulted in a similar shutdown. -
Energy Transfer Third-Party Software Hit by Cyberattack, but Operations Unaffected
Apr 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) said a third-party software system it uses was the victim of a cyberattack on Monday, but the incident did not affect its day-to-day operations. -
Environmentalists Detail Disasters Since RMP Rule Delay
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are listing more than two dozen industrial accidents that have occurred since the Trump administration delayed an Obama-era final rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, highlighting their legal charges that the Trump administration's delay is harmful and should be vacated. -
Former Official Expects Trump CEQ To Reopen NEPA Rules For Revision
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Fred Wagner, a top former Obama administration highway official and an expert on environmental reviews of infrastructure projects, says he expects the Trump administration to begin a review and rewrite of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules, once CEQ has a top official nominated and confirmed. -
EPA Drops Mention of ‘Climate Change’ in Auto-Emissions Reversal
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Beene
The phrase “climate change” is nowhere to be found in the 38-page document outlining the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that auto efficiency standards enacted by the Obama administration to fight climate change are too aggressive. -
Exxon Back in Hot Seat Over Reply to Investors on Climate Risk
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Exxon Mobil Corp. is in the hot seat again over its reply to last year's unprecedented investor drive for an analysis of how carbon curbs could affect the oil giant's business over the long term. -
District Court Judge Sets Tight Deadline For EPA Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court judge is ordering EPA to complete within three and a half years several overdue Clean Air Act risk and technology reviews (RTRs) of air toxics rules for various industry sectors, a loss for the agency that had sought seven years and slightly longer than the two-year deadline environmentalists had sought.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Apr 3, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt hired at least two ex-lobbyists and several other aides for noncritical positions through an obscure provision in a water-safety law.
The unusual hires are raising questions about whether the embattled Cabinet official is circumventing President Trump’s ethics directives or using his emergency hiring authority as intended.
The 1977 provision to the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to hire up to 30 people without the approval of the Senate or the White House. The power, granted directly to the EPA administrator, was originally designed to let the agency quickly hire senior management and scientific personnel during times of critical need.
But Pruitt appears to have used his hiring power differently, relying on the provision to bring in former lobbyists along with young spokesmen and schedulers.
Lee Forsgren, formerly an attorney for the lobbying firm HBW Resources, was hired through the water-safety provision to be deputy assistant administrator of the Office of Water — an office that has jurisdiction over oil spills, among other things. In 2013, the Consumer Energy Alliance, an advocacy organization managed by HBW Resources, issued an economic analysis finding that the Keystone XL pipeline would generate $580.2 million in direct spending over two years in Nebraska.
Pruitt also hired Nancy Beck, formerly an executive at the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry lobby shop, through the provision. As a deputy at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Beck has pushed for revising a number of chemical-safety rules, according to the New York Times.
Two other people who worked for Pruitt when he was Oklahoma attorney general — Michelle Hale and Lincoln Ferguson — were also hired by the EPA through the loophole. Hale is one of Pruitt’s executive assistants while Ferguson is an EPA spokesman. At least two other agency press officers, James Hewitt and Jahan Wilcox, were hired via Pruitt’s safe-water authority.
The EPA defended its hires and use of the law. “The Safe Drinking Water Act provides the EPA with broad authority to appoint scientific, engineering, professional, legal, and administrative positions within EPA without regard to the civil service laws,” said Wilcox, the spokesman. “This is clear authority that has been relied on by previous administrations.”
Yet ethics experts say hiring lobbyists through the provision breaks with some of Trump’s ethics rules, even if it’s not technically illegal.
As part of his commitment to “drain the swamp” in Washington, one of the first things Trump signed after his inauguration was a far-reaching ethics directive, requiring those who join the government to sign an ethics pledge. Under the pledge, former lobbyists are banned for two years from working on any issue on which they lobbied.
But EPA employees hired through the water-safety law do not have to sign the ethics pledge.
“I think it looks terrible, whether it’s legal or not,” said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush who has been critical of the Trump administration.
What’s more, Painter said, “if he’s bringing in schedulers or spokespeople, it seems that he is not acting consistent with the intent of Congress.”
In September, the investigative arm of Congress opened a probe into whether the EPA was circumventing the Trump administration’s own ethics rules when hiring through the drinking-water law. In January, the EPA’s inspector general announced it would audit Pruitt’s hiring practices as well.
Pruitt’s use of the little-known provision to the main federal law protecting public drinking water is in the spotlight after he also used it to grant significant raises to two EPA young staffers despite the lack of a White House approval.
After the White House refused to boost the two women’s pay, Pruitt reappointed both staff members under his authority in the act, according to two people with firsthand knowledge of the matter. The maneuver allowed Pruitt to set salary levels himself.
The salary of Sarah Greenwalt, a 30-year-old senior counsel who worked with Pruitt in Oklahoma when he was attorney general there, jumped from $107,435 to $164,200, after she was categorized under the provision. Millan Hupp, Pruitt’s 26-year-old director of scheduling and advance, got a pay bump from $86,460 to $114,590. Hupp also helped Pruitt shop for housing options for him and his wife last year, according to several individuals with knowledge of the matter. Details of the pay raises were first reported by The Atlantic and confirmed by The Washington Post.
Wilcox said that Pruitt “was not aware that these personnel actions had not been submitted to the [White House’s] Presidential Personnel Office. So, the Administrator has directed that they be submitted to the Presidential Personnel Office for review.”
The 1977 law was originally designed to allow the EPA chief to quickly bring aboard staff to fill “the most critical needs for additional personnel,” as the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce put it in a report that year. Similarly, then-Sen. Jennings Randolph (D-W.Va.), once the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a 1977 floor speech that “the provision was intended to augment the Agency’s cadre of senior management and scientific personnel.”
Yet Pruitt’s use of the law led environmentalists and one former Obama administration official to question whether Pruitt is using his authority properly.
“The people I knew of in that category were well-seasoned, experienced professionals in their fields,” said Ken Kopocis, who headed the Office of Water from 2011 to 2015. “We did not use it as a way to get around the White House. … It’s not designed to fill up your political slots.”
Kopocis added he was unaware of the drinking-water law being used to give any employee a raise.
Erik Olson, director of health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the provision was put in place to attract top scientific talent in times of need with higher salaries unbound by the regular hiring process. At the time, “there was a shortage of experts,” he said. “It’s clearly not to give raises to current staff or to skirt ethics rules.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/04/03/epa-chief-scott-pruitt-relied-on-obscure-law-to-hire-ex-lobbyists-schedulers-and-spokespeople/?utm_term=.40941f118ea5
-
AGs, Mayors Blast Pruitt's Rollback of Standards
Apr 3, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow
Attorneys general from 12 states and mayors from 45 cities issued a declaration this afternoon opposing the Trump administration's decision to revise fuel economy standards.
"As U.S. attorneys general, mayors and county executives, we — not federal officials in Washington, D.C. — are primarily responsible for the transportation systems upon which our residents and our local and regional economies depend," they wrote.
"A clean, efficient and high-performance vehicle fleet is an essential component of these systems," they said.
The declaration comes after U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this morning touted his decision to revise the fuel economy rules for cars and light trucks made from 2022 to 2025 (Greenwire, April 3).
The attorneys general and mayors noted that California has a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set its own, more stringent fuel economy standards. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have signed on to California's standards, representing about 40 percent of new vehicles sold in the country.
EPA said in a press release yesterday that California's waiver was being "reexamined." Any attempt to revoke the waiver would set up a fierce legal clash with California and the other states that follow its standards.
The attorneys general and mayors said they were ready for such a fight, although not all of them hail from states that have signed on to California's standards.
"Given our responsibilities to our citizens, we also strongly oppose and will vigorously resist any effort by the administration to prevent states from enforcing reasonable, commonsense emissions performance standards for vehicle fleets sold in their jurisdictions," they wrote.
"Such standards are particularly appropriate given the serious public health impacts of air pollution in our cities and states and the severe impacts posed by climate change, including recent storms, droughts, floods and fires that have hit multiple regions of the U.S. in just the past few years," they said.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said yesterday he's prepared to sue if EPA revokes the state's waiver.
Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan (D) said in a separate statement today, "These standards are key points in the fight against climate change. They help save consumers money on fuel. For years, Vermont has been a leader on motor vehicle emission standards and let me be clear: Vermont is going to stay committed to clean air and we will take necessary steps to fight this rollback."
Signing the declaration were attorneys general from Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia.
The mayors represented cities across the country, including metropolises such as Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Philadelphia.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/03/stories/1060078061
-
For Scott Pruitt, a Spotlight Shines on His Ethics, Not His E.P.A. Rollbacks
Apr 3, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
It should have been Scott Pruitt’s finest moment.
Mr. Pruitt, the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, has sought to make his name as the Trump administration’s most effective eraser of regulations on American industry. On Tuesday, he formally announced his most sweeping regulatory rollback to date: a plan to weaken President Barack Obama’s stringent rules on planet-warming tailpipe emissions.
Mr. Pruitt’s proposal is designed to unravel a signature piece of Mr. Obama’s environmental legacy, hand a victory to the American automakers and please his boss, President Trump. But instead of basking in glory, Mr. Pruitt is caught up in a swirl of allegations of impropriety — most recently centered on the fact that last year he rented a room in Washington from the wife of a prominent lobbyist.
Mr. Pruitt unveiled his rollback in a hastily announced presentation at E.P.A. headquarters after canceling a plan to speak at a suburban Virginia auto dealership, a more public setting that might have exposed him to questions about the lease arrangement, or about his first-class air travel at taxpayer expense over the past year, for which he has also faced criticism. Mr. Pruitt declined to field questions at the event.
Late Monday, Mr. Trump phoned Mr. Pruitt to reassure him that his job was safe. “Keep your head up, keep fighting, we got your back,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Pruitt, according to an administration official. Then on Tuesday morning, John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, called Mr. Pruitt to reaffirm the president’s sentiment, the official said.
Despite the president’s encouraging language in the call, the depth of Mr. Trump’s support can be difficult to gauge. He dislikes direct confrontation and has been known to pivot from chummy chatter with an associate, in private, to an abrupt firing.
That was the case last week with David J. Shulkin, the secretary of veterans affairs, who was fired by Mr. Kelly just hours after having what Mr. Shulkin described as a low-key phone conversation with the president about the progress he was making at the department, during which Mr. Trump said nothing of his impending ouster.
On Tuesday morning, Senate Democrats sent a letter to the E.P.A.’s inspector general asking him to open an investigation into Mr. Pruitt’s housing arrangements in 2017.
Mr. Pruitt came under fire last week after reports about his rental last year of a Washington residence partly owned by the wife of a top energy lobbyist whose firm, according to disclosure forms, conducted business before the E.P.A. that same year. Under terms of the lease, he paid $50 a night to stay in a condominium in the pricey Capitol Hill neighborhood.
An E.P.A. spokesman on Tuesday said the lease arrangement was consistent with federal ethics regulations.
Mr. Pruitt earlier this year was reprimanded by the White House after documents emerged showing that he had spent more than $107,000 in public money on first-class air travel.
A Republican member of Congress took the unusual step of calling for Mr. Pruitt’s removal on Tuesday. Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida wrote on Twitter, “Major policy differences aside, @EPAScottPruitt’s corruption scandals are an embarrassment to the Administration, and his conduct is grossly disrespectful to American taxpayers. It’s time for him to resign or for @POTUS to dismiss him.”
Mr. Curbelo is a co-chairman of the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group that has called for efforts to address global warming.
Mr. Trump on Tuesday afternoon made a brief comment when asked about Mr. Pruitt in the Cabinet Room, after The Atlantic magazine reported that Mr. Pruitt gave raises to two aides even though the White House had declined to approve the raises. “I hope he’s going to be great,” Mr. Trump said of the E.P.A. administrator.
The E.P.A. spokesman said that Mr. Pruitt had not been aware that the personnel actions had not been submitted to the Presidential Personnel Office and had directed them to be submitted for review. The spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, also said that the agency had “clear authority” to make staff appointments.
Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who himself has come under fire for ethics issues, including his handling of a bridge lane-closing scandal, said on Sunday that Mr. Pruitt’s actions were likely to cost him his job. “The president’s been ill served by this,” Mr. Christie said on ABC’s “This Week.” When asked if Mr. Pruitt should resign, he replied, “I don’t know how you survive this one.”
Mr. Trump has sought to build a legacy of rolling back regulations on American industry, and Mr. Pruitt has proved to be one of his most effective lieutenants. In his first year on the job, Mr. Pruitt initiated the rollbacks of more than two dozen major environmental rules.
The proposed rollback on vehicle mileage and emissions standards that he announced Tuesday is arguably the largest of those. Last year, soon after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the nation’s biggest automakers asked the president to loosen an Obama-era rule that would have forced automakers to build cars that achieve an average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, nearly doubling their mileage while also reducing a major source of greenhouse gas pollution.
At Mr. Trump’s request, Mr. Pruitt declared the auto regulation too onerous on industry and filed a legal document to reconsider it with the expectation of filing a new, weaker rule later this year.
Initially, Mr. Pruitt’s announcement was to take place Tuesday at a Chevrolet dealership in Chantilly, Va., owned by Geoffrey Pohanka, who has spoken out against climate science and against tougher automotive standards. But while Mr. Pohanka was eager to offer his dealership as a stage for the announcement, other Chevrolet dealers were uneasy about seeing the Chevy brand used as a backdrop to Mr. Pruitt’s announcement, according to two dealers who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing their relationship with the automaker.
Late Monday, the dealership said the event had been canceled. Instead, the Tuesday morning event was held at the E.P.A. headquarters, attended by a handful of auto industry lobbyists. The E.P.A. invited only a small handful of reporters to attend.
“This is another step in the president’s deregulatory agenda,” Mr. Pruitt said, standing next to a row of signs that said “jobs” and “certainty.” “We are going to make sure that consumers across this country are not put in a position where they’re having to buy more expensive cars, cars that don’t really truly want to be purchased.”
Afterward, when asked about the ethics questions facing his tenure, Mr. Pruitt turned and left the room, flanked by members of his security detail.
Some Republicans believe the E.P.A. chief’s efforts to roll back regulations will keep him in Mr. Trump’s good graces. “So far, his reforms are estimated to save taxpayers over $1 billion in deregulatory savings,” Senator James M. Inhofe, Mr. Pruitt’s fellow Oklahoma Republican, a senior member of the Senate environment committee and a longtime supporter of Mr. Pruitt’s, wrote in a statement. “He’s been an effective member of the president’s team and I look forward to continuing to work with him to restore the E.P.A. to its proper size and scope,” Mr. Inhofe wrote.
Conservative supporters said they believed it would take more than the apartment and travel scrutiny to bring down Mr. Pruitt. Myron Ebell, who led the Trump administration’s E.P.A. transition team, said he thought that as long as Mr. Pruitt pursued Mr. Trump’s agenda his job would be safe.
Mr. Trump is “giving us a number of surprises, and one surprise could be that he stands by Pruitt,” Mr. Ebell said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/climate/pruitt-epa-apartment-emissions.html
-
Pruitt's Car Rule Revisions May Upend Auto Market
Apr 3, 2018 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
Scott Pruitt is trying to make life easier for automakers, but some worry his approach may backfire.
The EPA chief plans to weaken rules that force cars to burn less gasoline and promote the spread of electric vehicles, but his approach is virtually guaranteed to set off a protracted legal fight that experts say may be difficult to win.
In the meantime — although Pruitt made the formal announcement Tuesday next to an all-caps sign promising “CERTAINTY” — he is leaving automakers like Ford and Toyota and their suppliers unsure of what will be expected of them when it is time to start building their model year 2022 cars and trucks.
“Automakers don’t like uncertainty. We have a long lead time,” said Robert Bienenfeld, assistant vice president for environment and energy strategy at the American Honda Motor Co. “But the alternative is a rule that’s too expensive to meet. We’re trading some uncertainty for, hopefully, a better solution.”
California received a waiver from the Obama EPA that allows it to implement tougher standards to limit vehicle emissions until 2025, and it is not clear that Pruitt can revoke that permission. If he follows through with his plan to lower the national standard, the result may be a patchwork of regulations across the country. Cars sold in California and about a dozen other states that follow its lead would be subject to one set of rules, while those sold everywhere else would have an easier set of standards to meet.
Such a rift is not exactly what automakers wanted when they urged President Donald Trump, just days after the election, to revisit the standards they negotiated with President Barack Obama and California years ago. But it seems to be where this fight is headed, as California officials like Attorney General Xavier Becerra say they will sue if the administration tries to weaken EPA's rules or revoke the state's waiver.
A split in standards “creates all kinds of problems for dealers, for distribution, for marketing, and confusion for customers,” Bienenfeld said.
He noted that there would be many places where crossing state lines would mean different prices for essentially the same vehicle as automakers try to balance sales to meet whatever targets apply locally. That would include traveling between Maryland, which follows California’s standards, and Virginia, which does not.
Pruitt on Monday made clear that he did not favor giving California special treatment, although he did not explicitly say what he planned to do about its waiver.
"It is in America's best interest to have a national standard, and we look forward to partnering with all states, including California, as we work to finalize that standard," Pruitt said in a statement.
There’s a lot of “posturing” going on with California, said Gloria Bergquist of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the industry’s main trade group. But she said the alliance is hopeful California will come to the table and accept whatever changes EPA adopts.
Ultimately, she said, “if they decide to go their own way, we’ll have all those electrified vehicles that we can sell in California.”
The auto emissions standards Pruitt is revisiting are the result of a deal reached in 2012 among representatives of the Obama administration, the auto industry and the state of California. Essentially, in the wake of the auto bailout, the administration was asking carmakers to agree to make their cars burn less gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The rules were widely touted as reaching a laboratory-tested fleetwide average of 54.5 miles per gallon, although the real-world figure would have been more like 36 mpg.
The Obama administration moved hastily after the election to keep the standards in place in January 2017, a move critics said was meant to tie the hands of the incoming administration. But following urging from automakers, Trump quickly ordered EPA to reopen the review.
“Mr. Pruitt has yet to find a regulation that he thinks makes sense,” said Carol Browner, the former White House climate adviser who helped Obama negotiate the car emissions program. She added, “I used to joke, according to Mick Jagger, everyone got what they needed, if not exactly what they wanted," but Pruitt is “now, apparently, turning that upside down."
The Obama administration gave California a waiver to pursue tougher car rules in 2009, and in 2012 struck a deal that any cars meeting the newly set national standard would also be considered compliant in California. Other states can choose to follow California’s rules, in whole or in part, and about a dozen do, including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington.
Browner said “the law is fairly clear” that EPA cannot revoke a waiver once it is granted, pointing out that the statute does not spell out a process for withdrawing a waiver like it does for issuing one.
But the waiver’s critics argue that anything granted by EPA can be taken away, or that the 2009 waiver was illegitimate from the start. In March, a coalition of conservative groups wrote a letter to Pruitt arguing that the state’s greenhouse gas waiver should "be regarded as preempted" by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which created the national CAFE program and blocks states from adopting their own fuel economy standards.
In the meantime, the industry is nervously eyeing the calendar. The long lead time needed to design, test and build vehicles means downstream companies are already working on 2022 technologies. The year or more it could take to revise the standards, plus subsequent legal challenges, could create uncertainty for years.
“We’re all very anxiously awaiting what’s going to happen,” said Rasto Brezny, executive director of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association.
“The 2022 technology is probably going to be sourced sometime this year,” said Brezny, whose represents companies that supply pollution control parts to automakers. “2021 is already done. Those orders have been committed to. And then this year we’re talking about looking at 2022.”
According to AAM's Bergquist, automakers have long lived with regulatory uncertainty, and had always been prepared for the 2022-2025 standards to change.
“Having certainty of standards that are unachievable because they’re out of alignment with what customers are buying is not a good thing,” she said.
Automakers are pitching programmatic changes that they hope California will swallow, such as the ability to apply now-expired credits for compliance or considerations for what are called “off-cycle” technologies that make cars more climate-friendly but don’t show up in typical fuel-efficiency reviews. Some of those changes are being pushed in bipartisan legislation in Congress that to date has failed to gain traction.
Most automakers, for now, are avoiding calling for actually rolling back the numerical targets, preferring to push a mix of changes to add compliance “flexibility” to the program.
But supporters of the Obama-era rules say there is no practical way to give automakers more flexibility without upending the deal with California.Dave Cooke, a senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said such tweaks can appear harmless but ultimately mean fewer emissions savings.
“On paper it’s definitely true you can imagine a situation where the standards remain where they are, and with these tweaks, the manufacturers could meet the standards as they would like to meet them,” he said. “But the net result would still be a weakening of the program in that it would result in more emissions than the program as it exists today.”
Cook said a regulatory patchwork of rules may not be as bad as some fear because automakers actually already dealt with a split between the California-aligned states and the rest of the U.S.
Until a couple of years ago, California enforced stricter pollution controls for auto emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, which form smog and soot. So for a time, automakers sold different cars with different pollution controls in the two areas. (The Obama administration eventually aligned the federal standard with California’s.)
“This isn’t new territory for them, which may be why they decided it was worth the effort and risk to undermine the federal program” for greenhouse gases, said Cooke.
EPA’s announcement comes just days after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unveiled unrelated plans to roll back an increase in penalties for automakers who violate its fuel economy standards.
The Obama administration in 2016 upped the penalties to account for inflation, from $5.50 per 10th of a mile per gallon to $14 per 10th of an mpg. The Trump administration justified reverting to the lower penalty by citing industry estimates that automakers would pay about $1 billion more a year in penalties, costs that NHTSA said would be passed on to consumers.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/04/pruitts-car-rule-revisions-may-upend-auto-market-452248
-
Critics Of Trump '2-For-1' Rule Order Cite Harm From Agency Policy Delays
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Critics of President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) forcing EPA and other agencies to identify two existing rules for repeal for every new rule they issue are adding to their district court complaint over the EO, citing alleged harm from several agencies' delayed rulemaking efforts that the plaintiffs argue are a direct result of the order.
Plaintiffs in Public Citizen, et al., v. Donald Trump, et al., including several environmental groups, filed their motion to enter an amended complaint on April 2, after a district judge dismissed their suit as it was originally submitted. The judge left the door open for the groups to add more evidence to support their arguments they have suffered harms because of rule delays mandated by the EO.
Public Citizen and its allies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are hoping to undo their Feb. 26 court loss in the suit over the order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Randolph D. Moss's ruling said that even though the “2-1” executive order has delayed rulemakings from EPA and other agencies, the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because the claims in their complaint did not meet the “demanding” standard to show that they face a concrete harm because of those delays.
“If the 'entire regulatory scheme is [not] pointless,' 'common sense' dictates that delays in issuing rules to protect consumers, workers, and the environment cause concrete injury to many of plaintiffs’ members. . . . This common-sense conclusion is fully applicable to the specific rules” at issue in the case, the plaintiffs' new motion says.
The amended complaint adds few details on environmental rules that have been delayed or scrapped under Trump's EO 13771. Instead, it focuses on elaborating harms that the groups say their members have suffered thanks to the White House delaying policies from agencies including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Energy (DOE) and others on workplace safety, vehicle technology, airline baggage fees and energy efficiency in some appliances.
Moss set a high bar for claiming such harms in his Feb. 26 order, holding that the simple lack of a rule designed to protect human health is not enough to prove “harm” when the plaintiffs could avoid those dangers in other ways. For instance, he said that while the EO prompted EPA to shelve limits on the paint-stripping chemicals methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), that does not necessarily harm NRDC members who paint because they could choose to buy other products and thus avoid exposure to either substance.
The new complaint does not add new detail on that or any other EPA rule, but if Moss accepts it and revives the suit NRDC and its co-plaintiffs would have another chance to win a ruling on the legality of Trump's “2-for-1” mandate as it applies to all executive-branch regulations.
New Claims
In one example that aims to clear Moss's bar for harm from a rule delay, the amended complaint says members of Public Citizen and its co-plaintiff Communications Workers of America who work in healthcare and other “high-risk” fields face unnecessary exposure to infectious diseases such as tuberculosis because OSHA shelved a planned rule announced under the Obama administration to set new standards limiting pathogen exposure in those jobs.
The amended complaint also adds a new citation to a planned OSHA rule that would set a safety standard for workplace violence in healthcare. The Obama administration accepted a rulemaking petition on the subject in January 2017 -- including a finding that the issue is “significant” -- but the Trump OSHA has slow-walked any action based on that finding, and in its most recent Unified Agenda of rulemaking activities categorized the timetable for the policy as “to be determined.”
Members of the plaintiff groups who work in healthcare “are exposed to the 'significant' risks that an OSHA standard on prevention of workplace violence would address, which would be reduced by a[n] OSHA standard,” the new complaint says.
On energy efficiency, the complaint adds a section targeting DOE's inaction on a 2016 proposal to set new standards for cooking appliances such as stoves and ovens, noting that members of the groups -- as well as Public Citizen as a business -- “intend to purchase new residential cooking appliances, including stoves and ovens, in the next two to five years, and want to purchase reasonably priced, energy-efficient products.”
Similarly, the groups argue that a delayed efficiency rule for commercial water heaters would produce over $367 million in benefits including consumer cost savings.
The complaint also notes that NRDC scrapped plans to petition EPA for new Safe Drinking Water Act standards to govern currently unregulated contaminants in order to avoid a situation where the agency would be forced to target two existing policies for repeal in order to grant the petition. But the motion seems to acknowledge that Moss is unlikely to back that claim because his Feb. 26 order doubted that such a change of plans can be considered a legal “harm.”“However, recognizing that the Court also ruled against them on a legal question related to causation with respect to this basis for standing, plaintiffs do not address this basis for standing further in this motion seeking leave to amend,” the motion says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-trump-2-1-rule-order-cite-harm-agency-policy-delays
-
Why Dining Out Can Increase Your Exposure to Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Apr 3, 2018 | Healthline
By Joni Sweet
If you’re trying to eat healthy, you know to avoid many restaurant meals that are high in fat and sodium. But now a new study has found there’s another potential risk to dining out: hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates.
These endocrine-disrupting chemicals are used in many plastic materials and may be migrating to your takeout orders, according to a new study published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at San Francisco, and George Washington University found that people who reported eating more meals at fast-food joints, restaurants, and cafeterias had nearly 35 percent higher levels of phthalates in their urine than people who relied mostly on grocery stores for their food.
The new findings indicate that food from restaurants, especially fast food, might be worse for our health than experts previously thought.
“Endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been purported to have caused the obesity epidemic, fertility problems, and a host of other ailments that seem to be increasing with [our consumption of] processed and mass-handled foods, like fast food,” said Caroline M. Apovian, MD, professor of medicine in the endocrinology department at Boston University School of Medicine. “More and more processed foods and the handling of food are causing ingestion of nonfood items, which may be harmful.”
Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2014, the researchers studied everything eaten by the 10,253 participants in the previous 24 hours and looked at the levels of phthalate breakdown products in their urine samples.
Participants ranged from 6 to 85 years old. Researchers found phthalate levels were higher among adolescents.
Those teens — who had more of their meals at restaurants, fast-food places, and cafeterias — had 55 percent higher endocrine-disrupters compared with their peers who ate at home, said lead author Julia Varshavsky, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at the University of California at San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.
“All of the co-authors on this study have children, and they know that as kids get older, they tend to eat worse foods,” she said. “There’s something to be said about the change in children’s diets as they gain more independence and the potential to intervene to improve eating habits at an early age.”What are phthalates?
Phthalates are a group of chemicals that are used to make plastics more flexible, but they’re also found in detergents, vinyl flooring, and multiple other products commonly used today.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences classifies certain phthalatesas “endocrine disruptors” that may “interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.”
The health effects from low-level exposure to phthalates is unknown in humans, and more research is needed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the CDC notes phthalates have been found to affect the reproductive system in animals.How fast food can affect phthalates exposure
In addition to finding a connection between increased phthalate levels and dining out, the study data also showed that consumption of cheeseburgers and sandwiches prepared outside the home was associated with 30 percent higher phthalate levels in participants of all ages.
The latest findings build on co-author Ami R. Zota’s previous study, which found that people who ate more fast food had higher levels of two particular types of phthalates than participants who reported eating no fast food in the last 24 hours.
“The reason we’re looking at dietary sources is because of the prior work that showed diet is a major source of exposure to phthalates,” said Varshavsky. “Phthalates are really relevant for children’s health and reproductive health.”
Studies have suggested that there may be associations between exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower IQ in children, higher risk of diabetes in women, increased likelihood of asthma, lower-quality sperm, and breast cancer.
“Endocrine-disrupting chemicals operate at the hormonal level, and since hormones operate at very low levels, so too can phthalates,” said Varshavsky.How we’re exposed to phthalates through food
People are exposed to phthalates in hundreds of everyday products, including shower curtains, nail polish, detergents, and raincoats. But particular attention should be paid to dietary sources, since food also has nutritional effects on our health, said Varshavsky.
Phthalates aren’t intentionally added to foods. Rather, the research suggests that the chemicals might be leeching into foods that come into contact with plastic containers, tubing, and food-handling gloves and equipment.
“While our findings suggest that the source of your food matters, it doesn’t mean that what you’re putting into your body is no longer relevant,” she said. “Eating fresh foods prepared at home is better [for limiting phthalate exposure], and it’s the same advice given to people who want to reduce sodium, sugar, and fat in their diet, so it’s a win-win for health in that way.”
The Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit organization that explores the connection between environmental chemicals and women’s health, offers several resources which may be useful for people looking to reduce their exposure to phthalates, said Varshavsky.
If you’re trying to eat healthy, you know to avoid many restaurant meals that are high in fat and sodium. But now a new study has found there’s another potential risk to dining out: hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates.
These endocrine-disrupting chemicals are used in many plastic materials and may be migrating to your takeout orders, according to a new study published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at San Francisco, and George Washington University found that people who reported eating more meals at fast-food joints, restaurants, and cafeterias had nearly 35 percent higher levels of phthalates in their urine than people who relied mostly on grocery stores for their food.
The new findings indicate that food from restaurants, especially fast food, might be worse for our health than experts previously thought.
“Endocrine-disrupting chemicals have been purported to have caused the obesity epidemic, fertility problems, and a host of other ailments that seem to be increasing with [our consumption of] processed and mass-handled foods, like fast food,” said Caroline M. Apovian, MD, professor of medicine in the endocrinology department at Boston University School of Medicine. “More and more processed foods and the handling of food are causing ingestion of nonfood items, which may be harmful.”
Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2014, the researchers studied everything eaten by the 10,253 participants in the previous 24 hours and looked at the levels of phthalate breakdown products in their urine samples.
Participants ranged from 6 to 85 years old. Researchers found phthalate levels were higher among adolescents.
Those teens — who had more of their meals at restaurants, fast-food places, and cafeterias — had 55 percent higher endocrine-disrupters compared with their peers who ate at home, said lead author Julia Varshavsky, PhD, postdoctoral scholar at the University of California at San Francisco Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.
“All of the co-authors on this study have children, and they know that as kids get older, they tend to eat worse foods,” she said. “There’s something to be said about the change in children’s diets as they gain more independence and the potential to intervene to improve eating habits at an early age.”What are phthalates?
Phthalates are a group of chemicals that are used to make plastics more flexible, but they’re also found in detergents, vinyl flooring, and multiple other products commonly used today.
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences classifies certain phthalatesas “endocrine disruptors” that may “interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife.”
The health effects from low-level exposure to phthalates is unknown in humans, and more research is needed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the CDC notes phthalates have been found to affect the reproductive system in animals.How fast food can affect phthalates exposure
In addition to finding a connection between increased phthalate levels and dining out, the study data also showed that consumption of cheeseburgers and sandwiches prepared outside the home was associated with 30 percent higher phthalate levels in participants of all ages.
The latest findings build on co-author Ami R. Zota’s previous study, which found that people who ate more fast food had higher levels of two particular types of phthalates than participants who reported eating no fast food in the last 24 hours.
“The reason we’re looking at dietary sources is because of the prior work that showed diet is a major source of exposure to phthalates,” said Varshavsky. “Phthalates are really relevant for children’s health and reproductive health.”
Studies have suggested that there may be associations between exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemicals and lower IQ in children, higher risk of diabetes in women, increased likelihood of asthma, lower-quality sperm, and breast cancer.
“Endocrine-disrupting chemicals operate at the hormonal level, and since hormones operate at very low levels, so too can phthalates,” said Varshavsky.How we’re exposed to phthalates through food
People are exposed to phthalates in hundreds of everyday products, including shower curtains, nail polish, detergents, and raincoats. But particular attention should be paid to dietary sources, since food also has nutritional effects on our health, said Varshavsky.
Phthalates aren’t intentionally added to foods. Rather, the research suggests that the chemicals might be leeching into foods that come into contact with plastic containers, tubing, and food-handling gloves and equipment.
“While our findings suggest that the source of your food matters, it doesn’t mean that what you’re putting into your body is no longer relevant,” she said. “Eating fresh foods prepared at home is better [for limiting phthalate exposure], and it’s the same advice given to people who want to reduce sodium, sugar, and fat in their diet, so it’s a win-win for health in that way.”
The Silent Spring Institute, a nonprofit organization that explores the connection between environmental chemicals and women’s health, offers several resources which may be useful for people looking to reduce their exposure to phthalates, said Varshavsky.
The organization’s tip sheet on phthalates and food recommends the following:Eat meals prepared at home.Choose fresh or frozen food over canned food.Store leftovers in glass containers.Use only heat-resistant glass or ceramic containers in the microwave.Brew coffee in containers that don’t have plastic tubing.
While Varshavsky’s study indicates there’s a potential danger in dining out for many meals, she’s hopeful that the research will ultimately lead to a reduction in exposure to phthalates.
“This is a solvable problem. Phthalates have really short half-lives, and if we remove the source of contamination, we’ll see an immediate reduction in phthalate levels in people’s bodies,” she said.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/dining-out-increases-exposure-to-hormone-disrupting-chemicals#7
-
NGOs Push Lowe's on Methylene Chloride Paint Strippers
Apr 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGOs are applying increased pressure on Lowe's, and other major US home improvement retailers, to stop selling paint removal products containing methylene chloride.
The latest campaign from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) centres around Drew Wynne, a 31-year-old South Carolina man killed by a paint stripper purchased at Lowe's last autumn. His family and the two NGOs are calling on home improvement retailers to stop selling products containing the substance.
Mr Wynne's death – despite wearing a respirator – is one of more than 50 linked to the products since 1980, and came just months after the EPA issued a proposal to ban them. But with signals that the current administration is considering shelving this, NGOs are redoubling efforts to push retailers to keep the products out of consumer hands.
In a letter to Lowe's, the NRDC calls on the retailer to:pull all paint strippers containing methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) from its shelves;voluntarily recall all such products;urge customers who have purchased the products to return them for a full refund; andencourage other retailers to do the same.
"We are hopeful that with the attention that is being paid to these toxics and with the clear evidence, that EPA eventually will have no choice but to take action," said the NRDC's Erik Olson. "But in a vacuum of authority, we are calling on Lowe's and other retailers that are selling this highly toxic chemical."Retailer responses
A spokesperson from Lowe's told Chemical Watch it is "working with our product suppliers to bring new alternatives to consumers and lead change in the industry." This includes a commitment to "nearly doubling" to seven the number of alternative products it offers by the year's end.
The company says it also continues "to work with our vendors to encourage improved labelling on packaging to better communicate the proper use of these chemicals, while also highlighting the benefits of alternative products."
The spokesperson did not respond to a request to elaborate on these labelling initiatives, nor to an inquiry regarding why it is continuing to sell the products.
Kathleen McGuigan, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (Rila), said in a statement that retailers "value the input of those who share their commitment to using science-based research to understand risks associated with components and the availability of alternatives."
"Retailers will continue to work diligently with both product manufacturers and government agencies to achieve these shared goals," she added.'Not meaningful and substantive'
The Mind the Store campaign first wrote to retailers last February, urging action on methylene chloride. But despite a series of meetings with the NGO, Lowe's has continued to sell the products.
Mind the Store director Mike Schade told Chemical Watch that, as a result of the campaign, the company agreed to double the alternatives it offers. But he said this is "not a meaningful and substantive solution".
And he said that The Home Depot's new safer chemicals policy – in which it said it would offer more alternative removers and work with suppliers and the EPA to "identify alternatives with comparable efficacy that do not pose risks to human and environmental health" – is also insufficient.
"In the European Union, Kingfisher and other home improvement retailers stopped selling paint strippers containing methylene chloride. If they can transition to safer alternatives, so can US retailers like Lowe's," said Mr Schade.Federal inaction
Late last month, three South Carolinian Republican lawmakers – representative Mark Sanford and senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott – cited Mr Wynn's death when writing to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, urging action on the proposed TSCA section 6 rule that would see the products banned.
An EPA spokesperson told Chemical Watch the agency is "currently considering" comments received in response to its proposal. These include both those saying "that EPA quickly finalise these actions, and comment suggesting that these be evaluated as part of the group of the first ten chemicals undergoing initial risk evaluations" under the new TSCA.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission issued updated labelling guidance last month to address acute inhalation hazard from use of the products. This is not intended to address all hazards identified by the EPA, but to "provide more immediate guidance and clarity … while those products remain on the market".
But according to Mr Schade: "With the federal government asleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting consumers from toxic chemicals like methylene chloride, retailers like Lowe’s must act."
https://chemicalwatch.com/65598/ngos-push-lowes-on-methylene-chloride-paint-strippers
-
Germany's VCI Warns of 'Serious Consequences' from a Hard Brexit
Apr 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) has warned of the "immediate and particularly serious consequences" of a so-called hard Brexit on the European chemicals industry.
Such a scenario would see the UK leave the EU without a trade deal in place and no longer part of either the single market or customs union. Nor would it have access to European agencies such as Echa.
The EU27 countries repeated their stance that Britain will play no role in EU agencies, in guidelines published last week on the future relationship between the UK and the European Union.
Utz Tillmann, VCI chief executive, warns that if the UK leaves the EU next March without an agreement in place, all UK REACH registrations and authorisation approvals would cease to be valid. This, he says "would bring numerous supply chains to a halt in one fell swoop".
Speaking after the VCI released a position paper on the UK's withdrawal, Mr Tillman said a hard Brexit would "severely affect" the German chemical industry. He emphasised that the two countries are important trading partners and that this "disaster" scenario must be averted by "appropriate backup measures".
The "greatest burdens" are to come, he said, if in any future regulation – notably REACH – the EU27 and the UK follow diverging paths.
"The high standards of protection of human health and the environment achieved by EU legislation, should continue to be harmonised in the EU27 and UK," he said. "To ensure this, the EU should seek a comprehensive partnership, investment and trade agreement with the UK in the exit negotiations."
And, he added, the loss of UK expertise would weaken the EU27’s evaluation and regulation of chemical products.
Customs delays
The VCI also warns in its position paper that time-consuming customs controls and delays will be inevitable after Brexit. And Britain, being a major logistics hub in the supply chain, could be hit by "double customs clearance" on third-country goods.
It estimates tariff payments of €200m could be imposed on chemicals and pharmaceutical products combined. These are costs that would make German products less competitive and would also be borne by UK consumers.
The association suggests the following measures to soften the customs impact:
tariffs, especially those on chemicals, should be waived;
customs controls, and the resulting delays and costs, should be kept to a minimum; and
increase the capacity of the customs authorities, including workforce, in particular on the UK, but also on the EU, side.
Competition rules
And the VCI says antitrust complications may present a threat to the chemicals industry. The EU Commission could no longer prosecute such violations committed by companies in the UK. And it could also become more difficult to enforce the antitrust law there.
Mergers between EU27 and UK companies would have to be filed separately in Britain. And this could mean significant additional costs and time and there is "a risk of deviating decisions", VCI says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65669/germanys-vci-warns-of-serious-consequences-from-a-hard-brexit
-
Make Energy Infrastructure Great Again
Apr 3, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dylan Reed
President Trump has been vocal on the need to improve America’s infrastructure, and for good reason. Any American driver can point to a bridge, road, or pothole that threatens them on the daily commute. No doubt, investments are needed to improve the physical infrastructure we rely on to get around and do business, but rarely think about – except when we blow out a tire.
Another thing we rarely think about is the reliability and effectiveness of our energy infrastructure. Access to reliable and affordable electricity has been the foundation of economic growth in the American economy. Electrifying America was one of the greatest economic development initiatives of the 20th century.
Right now, an energy revolution is taking place that can modernize our grid for the 21st century and beyond. New technologies are showing their value for the grid, and many states are working to ensure that old rules do not prevent them from making their electricity systems secure, clean, and reliable. It is time for the federal government to do the same for the whole country.
Last week, Advanced Energy Economy sent recommendations to congressional leaders for ways to modernize energy as part of their plan to rebuild the country’s infrastructure. Any national infrastructure bill should embrace these recommendations and build a 21st century electricity system to power our homes and our economy.
We agree with President Trump and leaders in Congress that streamlining regulations can accelerate the deployment of advanced energy resources, providing benefits to both the economy and environment. Better coordination between federal agencies can help reduce regulatory review that currently takes up to seven years.
Getting electric power to consumers should be another focus of infrastructure rebuilding. We need transmission to get power to consumers from distant locations where it is being developed. But it is also crucial to consider non-transmission, or “non-wires,” solutions that can do the job at a lower cost. Both need to be incorporated into transmission planning to keep the lights on for all Americans at a price they can afford.
When it comes to transportation, infrastructure rebuilding should also embrace vehicle electrification. Our roads and bridges need rebuilding, but we also need to make our roadways compatible with electric cars, trucks and buses as they grow in market share. That begins with putting electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on interstate highways. Federal law intended to prevent commercialization of public facilities impedes installation of EV charging infrastructure at highway rest stops. This makes no sense, and the law should be amended by Congress.
Finally, a comprehensive infrastructure policy should leverage private capital to capture energy savings for government buildings, schools and hospitals. Energy service companies have developed a financing mechanism – performance contracting – to upgrade buildings with more efficient products at no cost to costumers. The companies are paid the savings from the project, thus incentivizing more efficiency savings. Federal agencies have already leveraged $5 billion over the past five years. Private industry could leverage another $10 billion in capital to produce over $14 billion in savings for federal facilities.
We all agree the United States is in pressing need to upgrade its infrastructure. Energy has not always been part of the infrastructure conversation – but it should be.
Energy is a foundational input to American prosperity. Any infrastructure upgrade needs to incorporate energy infrastructure into the plan. Congress has many ways – both established and requiring new legislation – that can bring our energy infrastructure up to par for a 21st century economy and beyond. As a $200 billion U.S. industry with more than 3 million employees, we in advanced energy call on Congress to do just that.
For years, members of Congress – whether in the Capitol or on campaign trails – have called for an all-of-the-above energy approach to power a growing American economy. The advanced energy industry has proudly been a vital part of that strategy. By removing barriers to investment, our industry can provide affordable energy solutions to all Americans, while bringing jobs into the communities that need them most.
Dylan Reed is Head of Congressional Affairs for Advanced Energy Economy, a national business association for companies making our energy system more secure, clean, and affordable.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/381503-make-energy-infrastructure-great-again
-
Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells Expected to Rise in Colorado
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Oil and gas regulators in Colorado anticipate a rise in the number of orphaned wells as some drillers go out of business.
The state General Assembly recently approved a measure (H.B. 1098) that will ensure the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees the development and conservation of the state's oil and gas, can use unspent funds to cap abandoned wells. The bill is on its way to Gov. John Hickenlooper's (D) desk.
The governor will review the bill, and barring any unforeseen changes, is expected to sign it, Jacque Montgomery, spokeswoman for Hickenlooper, told Bloomberg Environment April 3.
“The state has quite a few they know about that are abandoned,” Bruce Baizel, energy program director for Earthworks, the nonprofit, in Durango, Colo., told Bloomberg Environment April 3. “With the weakness in operators, there will be more coming.”
Abandoned wells, if not properly capped, can lead to seepage and leakage that contaminates nearby groundwater and soil, Baizel said. In late October 2017 about 300 barrels of drilling mud mixed with oil began bubbling up from an old well near Berthoud, Colo., that was capped about 33 years ago. The spill was stopped before doing much environmental damage.
But since it was an orphaned well, the state was responsible for cleaning it up.
Accelerating Annually
The rate of new orphan wells is “accelerating each year with no sign of slowing down,” Matt Lepore, then director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, wrote in an October 2017 letter to state legislators.
On a per-well basis, the average cost to plug a well is six times greater than the amount of financial assurance held by the state, he said. If costs to mitigate environmental impacts and reclaim a well site are included, the average actual costs exceed financial assurance by a factor of 14, he said.
The commission knows of 244 orphan wells and 300 associated locations in need of cleanup, Lepore said.
Additionally, it estimated another 400 undiscovered wells are likely located in historic oil and gas fields around the state. The letter also said there were 63 distressed operators that operate at least 10 wells with at least 50 percent of their wells off-line. Together, these operators own 3,998 wells across the state, Lepore said.
Funds Retained
The bill, which is now on its way to Hickenlooper, received unanimous approval in the Senate March 29 and in the House March 8. If signed, it would specify that the year-end balance of the Environmental Response Account in the Department of Natural Resources is retained in the account at the end of the fiscal year, according to the Colorado Legislative Council, the General Assembly's nonpartisan research arm.
Up until now lawmakers have occasionally “raided” the account to pay for other budget needs unrelated to oil and gas, Baizel said.
The bill has the support of the oil and gas industry as well as environmental groups.
“We support this bipartisan bill as it will give the COGCC the flexibility to roll over funds from one year to the next, and plan its budget to properly reclaim those sites for which it has responsibility,” the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) said in a statement.
Larger Projects
Recently the annual funding for the account has been $445,000, but there are larger projects that will require larger amounts, Scott Prestidge, spokesman for COGA, told Bloomberg Environment.
Even with the legislative change, the money in the response account will not be enough, Baizel said. “If several of these operators were to go under at once, you'd be looking at a huge number of wells” that could be abandoned, he said.
Baizel said it's likely the bill will be the only significant legislation on oil and gas regulation to come out of the 2018 General Assembly session. Oil and gas bills from the Democratic-led House have died in the Republican-led Senate, while Republican-sponsored energy industry bills in the Senate have been scuttled in the House.
One noteworthy measure still going is a bill that would increase enforcement of requirements related to the location of underground facilities, including underground oil and gas pipelines. In 2016, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration determined Colorado's enforcement of its excavation damage prevention law was inadequate, which could eventually result in the withholding of federal funds from the state.
Prestidge noted the bill impacts several industries, not just oil and gas.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131145264&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131145264&jd=131145264
-
Another Sign of Permian Boom: Record Electricity Demand
Apr 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Ryan Maye Handy
In West Texas, an oil and gas drilling rush has overwhelmed local roadways, housing supplies and a limited pipeline network. Now, the shale boom is straining the region’s electric grid, which was designed to handle a fraction of the power needed by the oil and gas producers that dominate the West Texas economy.
Driving the booming power demand is a transformation in oil and gas operations as companies forgo expensive diesel and natural gas generators to power compressors and pipelines in favor of the cheaper option of hooking up to the grid. The unprecedented spike in electricity consumption coupled with inadequate transmission have slowed the development of new projects, such as sand mines, that support the energy industry. Excessive demand on a limited system also threatens the grid’s reliability in West Texas, and could lead to blackouts caused by the voltage overload.
“To say that this is load growth like we have not experienced before is kind of an understatement,” said Jeff Billo, senior manager of transmission planning with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which oversees 90 percent of the state’s grid. “There is not an area in ERCOT that has seen that kind of load growth before. That is unheard of.”
Fixing the bottlenecks has implications not only for the oil and gas industry, but also for the Texas economy, the environment and electric customers across the state. New and expanded transmission would allow energy companies to lower costs, improve profit margins, increase production and continue to hire and expand, not only in West Texas, but in Houston and other parts of the state — including burgeoning Gulf Coast ports where abundant supplies of crude and natural gas are sent, stored and exported.
New transmission that accelerates the shift to electricity would also lower emissions from diesel generator and natural gas engines, while supporting the develeopment of large-scale solar farms in the region, particularly in Pecos County, which is fast becoming a hub for solar energy. And electricity customers across the state could end up paying for it.
Under state regulations, the costs of transmission projects are shared by all users of the power grid, regardless of whether they are served directly by the transmission or the utility building it. The Dallas utility Oncor, which serves the Permian Basin, is asking regulators to expedite two transmission projects, costing an estimated $223.6 million, to meet the skyrocketing demand in the oil patch.
“Is the rest of the state subsidizing these capital investments to handle peak loads?” said David Tuttle, a research fellow at the University of Texas Energy Institute.
It’s too soon to tell how much Oncor’s and other transmission projects in West Texas might add to electricity bills. Three utilities, Oncor, AEP Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power, serve a majority of the region around the Permian Basin that covers 24,000 miles, with an average of just 16 people per square mile. By 2022, the power demand in the area is projected to climbe to 1,000 megawatts, up from just 22 megawatts in 2010. (A megawatt can power about 200 homes on a hot Texas day.)
The year 2010 marked the beginning of the shale oil boom, which combined hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, with horizontal drilling to extract crude from previously inaccessible shale rock. Oil and gas operators flocked to West Texas and the Permian Basin, retreating after prices began their plunge in 2014, but recently returning in strength. Much of the new activity is concentrated in the Delaware Basin, a remote subsection of the larger Permian where transmission, pipelines and other infrastructure are limited.
Texas-New Mexico Power, which has around 20,000 customers in West Texas, has seen power demand spike from about 96 megawatts in 2014 to nearly 250 megawatts last year. In response, the company has begun to upgrade its transmission lines and substations, said Eric Paul, a company spokesman.
Oncor’s service territory is in the heart of the West Texas energy boom. Its eastern boundary is near Sweetwater, a mecca for wind power, and it stretches west to Midland and Odessa, the biggest cities in the region and hubs for drilling. The utility expects the Permian’s power demand to triple in the next five years, and it plans to spend most of its annual $1.7 billion for transmission upgrades on West Texas, said spokesman Geoff Bailey.
Demand for power is only liked to grow. Houston-based Apache Corp. plans to use electricity to run its gas compressors instead of natural gas or diesel as it develops its shale play, Alpine High, which holds 15 million barrels of oil and gas underneath 350,000 acres of southern Reeves County. Navneet Behl, Apache’s vice president of operations for North American Unconventional Resource, said the company is working with the region’s utilities to bring power to the remote area in the Delaware Basin.
Apache’s five massive compressors, which take gas from wells and separate it from other liquids, run on natural gas engines. The company plans to electrify the compressors and eventually hook up smaller equipment, like tank batteries, to the electric grid.
“We have submitted load requests with each of the three utilities serving the region,” said Behl, “ and we are working hand-in-hand with them to develop the infrastructure where it’s needed, including the installation of new substations and transmission and distribution lines.”
Before opening the region’s first sand mine last summer, Hi-Crush Partners of Houston asked Oncor to build a line to bring electricity to the plant, which produces 3 million tons of sand a year to be used in the fracking process. When construction finished months early at the end of July 2017, operations were run on generators until Oncor finished connecting the plant, said Deke Williamson, vice president of operations for the company. The plant uses an average of 1.4 million kilowatt hours a month. (The average home uses around 11,000.)
Williamson said competitiors that have followed his company have a longer and more diffiult time getting hooked up to the grid. Capacity on transmission lines has been taken by early arrivals to the areas such as Hi-Crush..
“From our standpoint the capacity was there, and once we got that contracted, we have all the power we need,” Williamson said .“As for somebody later in the game, they are not going to find the same.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Another-sign-of-Permian-boom-Record-electricity-12800450.php?t=f55a0c1430
-
Third Gas Pipeline Data System Shuts a Day After Cyberattack
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
A third U.S. pipeline company reported its electronic system for communicating with customers has stopped working, a day after a cyberattack resulted in a similar shutdown.
The Department of Homeland Security, which said April 2 it's gathering information about the potential intrusion, had no immediate comment on the latest shutdown. The April 3 closure affected Oneok Inc., which operates natural gas pipelines in the Permian Basin in Texas and the Rocky Mountain region.
The shutdowns come after U.S. officials warned in March that Russian hackers are conducting a broad assault on the nation's electric grid and other targets. Last month, Atlanta's municipal government was hobbled for several days by a ransomware attack.
The systems hit in the last two days help pipeline customers communicate their needs with operators, using a computer-to-computer exchange of documents.
Energy Transfer Partners LP and Boardwalk Pipeline Partners LP reported breakdowns April 2. Energy Transfer, which reported the reason as being a cyberattack, said its electronic data interchange system—provided by third-party Energy Services Group LLC—was back online in the early evening, and that business wasn't affected in any other way.
The cyberattack didn't affect flows on the pipeline.
“It is not operationally serious in the sense that it's stopping the natural gas from moving, but it is serious because it's causing these companies to use workarounds for communication,” said Rae McQuade, president of the North American Energy Standards Board in Houston, which is responsible for developing industry standards.
“If somebody is running a business that has some kind of critical asset to it—pipelines, energy, finance—those networks are going to be targets; those networks have been targets,” said John Harbaugh, chief operating officer at R9B, a cybersecurity solutions provider in Colorado Springs, Colo.
Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Oneok said its EDI system would be “unavailable until further notice,” but didn't provide a reason, according to a website notice. The company didn't immediately respond to requests for further comment. Latitude, the unit of Energy Services Group that operates Energy Transfer's system, didn't return phone calls or emails.
Latitude is “very well known in the industry, ” the energy board's McQuade said. “They have a lot of clients, they are very well respected.”
Many of the 3 million miles of pipelines that spread across America rely on third-party companies for their electronic communication systems, Andy Lee, senior partner at Jones Walker LLP in New Orleans, said by telephone. In turn, they depend on those companies to provide security for those systems from attacks.
Gaining Attention
The systems are gaining attention from hackers because they've proven to be “low-hanging” fruit that creates an opportunity for ransomware or to sell the information on the dark web, Lee said.
This isn't the first time U.S. pipelines have been targeted. In 2012, a federal cyber response team said in a note that it had identified a number of “cyber intrusions” targeting natural gas pipeline sector companies. The group, the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team, is a division of Homeland Security.
“It's important to recognize that this does not appear to be an attack on an operational system,” said Cathy Landry, a spokesman for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “An attack on a network certainly is inconvenient and can be costly, and something any company —whether a retailer, a bank, or a media company—wants to avoid, but there is no threat to public safety or to natural gas deliveries.”
She said she “cannot speak for any of the companies specifically about what may or may not have happened to their systems.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131145260&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131145260&jd=131145260
-
Energy Transfer Third-Party Software Hit by Cyberattack, but Operations Unaffected
Apr 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) said a third-party software system it uses was the victim of a cyberattack on Monday, but the incident did not affect its day-to-day operations. Other pipeline companies using the same software said they were not affected by the outage and have backup systems in place.
Shortly after 12:30 p.m. ET on Monday, ETP issued a critical notice on its electronic bulletin board for Rover Pipeline. The notice said its EDI system, a platform developed by Norwell, MA-based Energy Services Group LLC (ESG), had experienced an outage.
Because of a cyberattack on ETP's third-party EDI provider, Latitude Technologies Inc., “EDI will be unavailable until further notice," the company told its trading partners. ESG acquired Latitude Technologies Inc. in November 2016.
"ETP is evaluating Latitude's status and will be testing to assure safe file transactions,” the notice said. “When the system is available and safe, a new notice will be posted."
The second notice was posted about five hours later on Monday. "ETP has evaluated our EDI provider's status and is comfortable that EDI file transactions can safely be exchanged," it said. EDI files were able to be exchanged after 5:00 pm CT.
ETP spokeswoman Alexis Daniel told NGI on Tuesday that "there was an attack on a third-party service provider. This situation has not impacted our operations as we are handling all scheduling in house during this time."
Other pipelines also use EDI. Spokeswoman Phyllis Hammond of Tallgrass Energy Partners LP said EDI "primarily allows shippers and operators to electronically communicate daily transactions.
"Tallgrass Energy does not use the same EDI provider that experienced the attack reported yesterday, and our system was not impacted by the incident," Hammond said Tuesday. "It's important to note that we have systems in place to effectively work with those parties whose systems were impacted to ensure our operations continued to run normally."
Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI) spokeswoman Sara Hughes confirmed that KMI also uses EDI, but that its system "was not affected” by the cyberattack. She said since the company had not been affected, "there is no need for us to change our system or process at this time."
Last month, the Trump administration accused Russian government operatives of targeting the U.S. energy sector, government agencies and other critical infrastructure sectors with a series of cyberattacks for at least the last two years. The accusation followed an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
In early March, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology issued a report that found Russian agents were using social media to try and disrupt energy markets in the United States.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113906-energy-transfer-third-party-software-hit-by-cyberattack-but-operations-unaffected
-
Environmentalists Detail Disasters Since RMP Rule Delay
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are listing more than two dozen industrial accidents that have occurred since the Trump administration delayed an Obama-era final rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, highlighting their legal charges that the Trump administration's delay is harmful and should be vacated.
“There is strong evidence showing that these rules would make a difference in saving lives and reducing injuries,” groups including Earthjustice and the Union of Concerned Scientists say in the April 3 report “A Disaster In The Making.”
EPA Administrator Scott “Pruitt’s refusal to follow the Clean Air Act, and his foot-dragging on needed safety measures based only on his speculation that some part of the rule might one day be changed, run afoul of the law,” the report adds.
The report details at least 30 “publicly known incidents” that have occurred at facilities since the Trump administration initial short-term delay of EPA's January 2017 final rule updating its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule with new requirements.
It notes EPA's past findings that the RMP update would reduce disasters, and cites statements from U.S. Chemical Safety Board Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland that a facility fire sparked by Hurricane Harvey highlights the importance of the RMP update rule's core concepts.
The report also faults EPA for not releasing a list of all recent accidents.
The environmental, labor and public health groups argue that the Obama EPA's rule, with requirements for greater hazard analysis, coordination with first responders and streamlined disclosure of facility data, would have reduced accidents.
Since the initial short-term delay, Pruitt has sought to delay the rule by nearly two additional years -- until Feb. 2019 -- to allow the Trump administration time to revise the regulation after it accepted an industry petition for reconsideration.
But the delay rule is facing a stiff legal challenge from environmental and other groups, who charge such a lengthy delay is unlawful.
During March 16 oral argument in the case Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, environmentalists' attorneys argued the lengthy delay violated a Clean Air Act limit on EPA's authority to delay rules for purposes of revision and that the postponing implementation puts the public at risk.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel generally agreed that EPA had authority to delay rules for the purpose of revising them, though Judge Judith Rogers in particular seemed to question whether EPA had justified postponing the new RMP requirements based solely on its reconsideration of the rule.
Since then, the panel March 23 ordered EPA to provide a list instances -- prior to the Trump administration RMP delay -- where the agency has delayed rules for purposes of revision. The list is due to the court April 6.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-detail-disasters-rmp-rule-delay
-
Former Official Expects Trump CEQ To Reopen NEPA Rules For Revision
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Fred Wagner, a top former Obama administration highway official and an expert on environmental reviews of infrastructure projects, says he expects the Trump administration to begin a review and rewrite of the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules, once CEQ has a top official nominated and confirmed.
Such an effort would allow the administration to implement a series of reforms to how NEPA is implemented given the unlikelihood that Congress will adopt legislative reforms the Trump administration and many GOP lawmakers and industry officials favor to speed approval of infrastructure projects, Wagner said in a recent interview with Inside EPA.
“It is pretty clear to me the objective of the administration is to open up for discussion and revision of the existing CEQ [NEPA] regulations. It's going to happen. I don't know when they will announce it but it will be soon, and they will seek a lot of input and see if they can put a lot of what we talked about in the rules,” says Wagner, the former chief counsel to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) who is now with Venable LLP.
He says he expects the process to begin once the administration has selected and won confirmation for a new CEQ chair. Trump's first nominee, Kathleen Hartnett White, withdrew her nomination in February over concerns about her performance at her Senate confirmation hearing and demands by Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) that she withdraw before other key nominations could move forward.
Wagner says he has not heard of any likely picks for a new nominee, “and I have asked.” But he says once that process is complete, he expects officials will begin the process of reviewing and revising CEQ's rules for how agencies implement NEPA.
“If you don't have a political leader to shepherd that through, it's hard,” he says.
In addition to lacking a CEQ chairperson nominee, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council -- which was created by highway funding legislation approved during the Obama administration known as the FAST Act -- also lacks a nominee for executive director.
“The White House infrastructure team cannot do everything,” Wagner says.
While the White House's recent infrastructure plan called on Congress to reform NEPA and several bedrock environmental laws, Wagner downplays the need for broad legislative changes to NEPA in order to clear a path for massive infrastructure building.
But like others, he largely downplays the likelihood that Congress will pass infrastructure legislation this year and says the key fight will take place at CEQ once that office has a nominated and confirmed chairperson.
He says revising CEQ's rules would allow the administration to bypass Congress and advance a series of NEPA reforms.
A Better Approach
The Trump administration's proposed NEPA reforms “mirrors and expands what was done already” by the prior administration and lawmakers, including specific changes to how the Department of Transportation (DOT), of which FHWA is a part, conducts its NEPA reviews that were authorized through MAP 21 in 2012 and the FAST Act in 2016, Wagner says.
Rather than legislating NEPA reforms, a better approach, he says, is to continue building on the progress that the prior administration made, by giving agencies the tools they need to make their reviews more efficient and in compliance with the laws on the books, according to Wagner, who left FHWA in 2014.
“I believe the last administration made a great deal of progress” in helping agencies better implement their NEPA responsibilities. “What you are seeing now is an acceleration of the same processes.”
Many of the Trump infrastructure recommendations are already in law for DOT, including a recommendation to shorten the statute of limitation to bring NEPA-related lawsuits to 150 days. That limit could be expanded to other agencies, which have a general six-year statute of limitations. Such a move would make the limit consistent throughout the government and “accelerate resolution” to challenges, he says.
One item missing from the administration's plan that Wagner finds beneficial to expand beyond DOT is to give agencies authority to combine a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and a record of decision (ROD) -- both required NEPA processes.
Current CEQ rules require a 30-day “cooling off” period between the two documents but the actual lag time is generally six months or more, Wagner says. He notes that combining the EIS and ROD authorities was in an early administration draft infrastructure plan that was leaked but was dropped from the final official version.
Although he opposes legislative reforms, one area where Wagner supports a legislative change is to minimize the role of EPA in reviewing other agencies' NEPA reviews -- an authority that is contained in the Clean Air Act that will be difficult to repeal.
Nonetheless, he says EPA's role has become “fraught with repetitiveness” as well as “little 'p' political in that if there were folks who didn't like a project” there would be lobbying for a bad grade/negative comments. “And then EPA would oftentimes contribute at the very last minute,” slowing down the process.
He says if that authority is dropped from the air law, then EPA would participate in the same way as other agencies, and that would encourage the agency to air objections sooner, helping to speed reviews.
'Ruing The Day'
While Wagner sees potential benefits to a rewrite of some of CEQ's NEPA rules, he takes issue with other steps the Trump administration has already taken on NEPA.
For example, he expects that CEQ will end up “ruing the day” it withdrew the Obama administration's guidance for how agencies should consider greenhouse gas emissions in NEPA reviews, a step the White House formalized almost exactly one year ago.
Writing on his blog on NEPA issues, he warned that the withdrawal of the guidance -- which the Obama administration worked on for years -- would remove any consistency in how agencies assess the GHG and climate impacts of their decisions.
“The CEQ GHG NEPA Guidance has disappeared. But the challenge of how to address climate issues under NEPA has not,” he wrote last spring.
In the interview with InsideEPA, Wagner says that the withdrawal of the guidance will mean agencies will conduct reviews based on a patchwork of different court rulings.
In many ways the rescission of the guidance is “irrelevant to what agencies will or will not do when assessing the emissions of GHGs and their contributions to major federal actions, because now what matters is that . . . courts are going to weigh in on whether the agency did the right thing or not,” he says.
He notes the guide was intended to provide conformity and best practices among agencies, because “the requirement to consider GHGs is in the law already.”
For example, Wagner cites a recent appellate ruling that required the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to redo a NEPA analysis for a proposed natural gas pipeline for failing to consider downstream GHGs.
FERC recently issued a supplemental EIS for the project that downplayed the GHG impact and “will go to court again,” he predicts.
Wagner also notes that not every federal action is “created equal,” and compared determining the scope of a GHG analysis under NEPA to “the ripple when you throw a stone in a pond. How many ripples out do you have to look when you are looking at GHG analysis?” For an oil and gas lease, does it have to consider the oil to be drilled, produced and burned? A downstream analysis “is an open question” and for now will be determined by “case-by-case evaluations by courts” since there is no more guidance.
He adds, “The thing that this administration missed is guidance could have provided some cover to federal agencies. And if they followed those recommendations, it would have increased the likelihood of the analysis being upheld” by a court. But now, agencies are working off a “blank slate” and the administration “may end up ruing the day they withdrew” the guide if they get enough adverse court decisions, Wagner says.
He also notes that though career CEQ officials have said that agencies can still use the withdrawn guidance, “Agencies that may still be using it won't say so, expressly, for obvious reasons. But agencies that are more adept will be doing so but it will be unspoken.”
https://insideepa.com/interview/former-official-expects-trump-ceq-reopen-nepa-rules-revision
-
EPA Drops Mention of ‘Climate Change’ in Auto-Emissions Reversal
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ryan Beene
The phrase “climate change” is nowhere to be found in the 38-page document outlining the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that auto efficiency standards enacted by the Obama administration to fight climate change are too aggressive.
The standards were the agency's first major effort to slash greenhouse-gas emissions after it determined the gases presented a hazard to public health.
Indeed, former EPA chief Gina McCarthy called climate change “the primary policy driver” of the auto rules and devoted 10 pages to climate science when she proposed in November 2016 that the standards through 2025 were feasible and should remain in place.
The revised final determination, released April 2 by current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, reversed that decision. It doesn't mention climate change or public health.
Among the reasons cited in the new document were auto industry comments that the costs of meeting the carbon targets could price some consumers out of the market, thus keeping older, less-efficient cars on the road for longer, undermining the goals of the rules.
The EPA isn't the first agency to scrub climate from its policy documents. In March, the Federal Emergency Management Agency released its latest four-year strategic plan; unlike the previous one, it didn't mention climate change, global warming, or extreme weather — the very factors scientists say are driving up disaster costs.
Noting the omission of “any mention of climate change or its impacts,” the Union of Concerned Scientists called the EPA determination “basically a regurgitation” of talking points made by auto-industry trade associations.
“No other federal policy is delivering greater global warming emissions reductions than these vehicle standards,” the environmental advocacy group said in an analysis. “If the EPA completely rolls back the regulations, as some have signaled, that will mean an additional half billion tons of global warming emissions just from the vehicles sold between 2022-2025.“
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131145252&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131145252&jd=131145252
-
Exxon Back in Hot Seat Over Reply to Investors on Climate Risk
Apr 4, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrea Vittorio
Exxon Mobil Corp. is in the hot seat again over its reply to last year's unprecedented investor drive for an analysis of how carbon curbs could affect the oil giant's business over the long term.
The leader of that drive, the New York State Common Retirement Fund, has sent Exxon a series of questions about projections used in the climate risk report it issued this year. The fund, which owns about $857 million in Exxon shares, also wants to know how the company plans to make refineries and other facilities more resilient to extreme weather events such as hurricanes, according to its March 30 letter.
“Exxon's climate risk disclosures to date have been inadequate,” New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the third-largest public pension fund in the U.S., said in a statement provided to Bloomberg Law on April 3. “We remain focused on pushing the company to address climate risk because Exxon's future depends on its ability to adjust to a lower carbon global economy.”
The comptroller's office has asked Exxon to reply to its questions by May 1 so that the fund can decide on “next steps” before the company's annual meeting, usually held at the end of May. It hasn't said yet what those next steps will be.
Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said when asked about the letter that “we value input from all of our shareholders.”
Report Reaction
The pension fund teamed up with the Church of England's investment fund to submit for last year's meeting a shareholder proposal asking Exxon to assess the risks it faces if the world meets its goal to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The proposal passed over board opposition, thanks to unprecedented backing from BlackRock Inc., Vanguard Group, and other top asset managers.
Exxon didn't respond to the vote right away, so DiNapoli resubmitted the climate disclosure proposal for this year's meeting. He withdrew it after Exxon agreed to publish a report.
Exxon's report to investors, published in February, said if climate change curbs live up to their promise, oil demand may fall 20 percent by 2040. It said in a separate business outlook that it's more likely that demand will grow by 20 percent.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a think tank that researches how shifting away from fossil fuels could affect investments, deemed Exxon's investor report “inadequate” because it didn't provide enough details on underlying assumptions.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, which is funded in part by the Rockefeller family, likewise called the report to investors “defective and unresponsive.” The Rockefellers, whose family fortune comes from the father of the U.S. oil industry and founder of what's today Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp., sold their Exxon stock in 2016 as part of a split with fossil fuels.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131145256&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131145256&jd=131145256
-
District Court Judge Sets Tight Deadline For EPA Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Apr 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court judge is ordering EPA to complete within three and a half years several overdue Clean Air Act risk and technology reviews (RTRs) of air toxics rules for various industry sectors, a loss for the agency that had sought seven years and slightly longer than the two-year deadline environmentalists had sought.
In her March 31 opinion for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., et al. v. EPA, Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson sets an Oct. 1, 2021 deadline for completing the RTRs -- though the agency has argued that its dwindling budget and staffing levels could complicate meeting that goal.
RTRs are due eight years after EPA first promulgates a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule for an industry sector, but the agency is years behind schedule. If EPA during the review finds residual risks to public health, or that new, cost-effective control technology has become available, or both, it can tighten the standards.
Environmentalists have filed a series of suits seeking to force completion of the reviews. Under the Obama administration, some of these ended in settlements setting schedules.
But under the Trump EPA, the agency has declined to settle, in line with its general prohibition on entering into “sue-and-settle” deals without the input of the regulated industry in question. The same district court has already ordered EPA to complete dozens of overdue RTR rules in the next three years.
In her new ruling, Brown Jackson says, “this Court will order the EPA to comply with its statutory obligations as expeditiously as possible, although not on the extremely compressed timeline Plaintiffs propose. Specifically, the EPA must complete all nine overdue rulemakings over the next three and a half years, and no later than October 1, 2021.”
Brown Jackson rejects EPA's claims that it lacks the resources to complete the rulemakings in less than seven years, but also rejects environmentalists' “impossibly” short schedule.
“EPA will be required to begin the instant rulemakings no later than January 1, 2019, after completing its first tranche of the existing court-ordered RTR reviews, and it will be further ordered to complete all nine overdue rulemakings no later than” the Oct. 1, 2021, deadline, she writes.
The affected industry sectors include primary copper smelting; carbon black production; cyanide chemicals manufacturing; spandex production; flexible polyurethane foam fabrication; refractory products manufacturing, semiconductor manufacturing; primary magnesium refining and mercury emissions from mercury call chlor-alkali plants.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/district-court-judge-sets-tight-deadline-epa-air-toxics-rule-reviews
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested