Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/9/18
-
Hearing on Hurricane Harvey Lessons
Apr 9, 2018 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Location: Cypress, Texas / 11:30 AM -
Hearing on Cooperative Federalism Under the Clean Air Act
Apr 10, 2018 | Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Rail Safety and Infrastructure
Apr 11, 2018 | Appropriations Subcommittee
Location: 2358-A Rayburn / 9:30 AM -
Hearing on Energy Budget
Apr 12, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommitte
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Regulations
Apr 12, 2018 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee
Location: 342 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on the Tariffs and U.S. Jobs
Apr 12, 2018 | Ways and Means Committee
Location: 1100 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Farmers to Trump: No Trade War, Please
Apr 6, 2018 | Politico
By Adam Behsudi, Catherine Boudreau and Doug Palmer
President Donald Trump has promised to shield farmers from the sting of China’s trade retaliation, but that embattled portion of Trump’s rural base says they just want to sell on the open market, without tariffs slapped on their products amid escalating tensions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Fears Escalate as Trump Ups Ante
Apr 6, 2018 | The Hill
By Niv Elis
Markets dropped precipitously on Friday amid fears of a growing trade war between the United States and China. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Markets Are Bouncing Back as Concern over Trump's Trade War Eases
Apr 6, 2018 | GkMen
By Bennie Garza
China, by contrast, has unique tools to counteract US tariffs, according to analysts. Along with increasing regulations and bans from Google, the trade war threats have also been eroding crypto investor's sentiment. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Needs to Go—but So Do Others in Pruitt's Conflicted and Corrupt EPA
Apr 6, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Andrew Rosenberg
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt seems to have a penchant for scandalous behavior, from misuse of public funds to special deals with corporate lobbyists. -
(ACC Mentioned) Saudi Chemical Maker Eyeing Houston for Americas Headquarters
Apr 8, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Saudi Basic Industries Corp. proposed building a Houston headquarters for its Western Hemisphere operations as the Middle East’s dominant chemical maker seeks to capitalize on the U.S. shale boom. -
(ACC Mentioned) 16 Items People Waste Too Much Money on at the Grocery Store and Should Stop Buying Immediately
Apr 7, 2018 | Business Insider
By Matthew Michaels
Grocery stores — whether your local store or a big-box chain — have tons of items in stock and many for a fair, reasonable price. But that doesn't mean it should be your one-stop shop for anything you need to buy. -
After Targeting U.S. Farms, China Can Strike America's Shale
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Heesu Lee and Stephen Stapczynski
China's tariffs in one corner of the energy market signal U.S. shale fields may follow the nation's farms as a target if a trade war escalates. -
Middle East Emerges as Possible Energy Winner in U.S.-China Spat
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ann Koh
The Middle East is emerging as a potential beneficiary of the brewing trade war between the U.S. and China as the Asian nation strikes back with retaliatory tariffs on American petrochemical products. -
Scott Pruitt is Unfit to Serve
Apr 6, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The blizzard of ethical questions surrounding Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has become a Category 5 storm. -
In His Haste to Roll Back Rules, Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. Chief, Risks His Agenda
Apr 7, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Lisa Friedman
As ethical questions threaten the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, President Trump has defended him with a persuasive conservative argument: Mr. Pruitt is doing a great job at what he was hired to do, roll back regulations. -
As Pruitt Hangs on, Deputy Pick Readies for Vote
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Geof Koss
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt remains in his job and could soon have his deputy in place — unless controversy overtakes them both. -
Inside the EPA: 'It's Just a Slow-Motion Trainwreck'
Apr 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Environmental Protection Agency employees are talking about “backstabbing” and “civil war,” worrying about leaks or wondering whether to leak, pondering quitting while fearing that the mushrooming scandals surrounding Administrator Scott Pruitt will make it impossible for them to find a job. -
Zinke, Perry, Chao and Other Cabinet Officials Back on Hill
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
House and Senate lawmakers have scheduled a slew of budget hearings this week, calling up the likes of Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to defend the White House fiscal 2019 plan. -
EPA Debates TSCA's Reach To Address Chemicals' Already Regulated Uses
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders in EPA's toxics office are debating whether their upcoming assessments of the first 10 existing chemicals slated for review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should address the substances' other regulated uses or whether to remove those overlapping uses from the scope of the TSCA analyses. -
PMTs, vPvMs could be SVHCs, Germany says
Apr 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Christine Lepisto
Persistent, mobile, and toxic (PMT) and very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) substances could be designated as substances of very high concern (SVHCs), under an equivalent level of concern (REACH article 57f), according to Germany’s federal environment agency (UBA). -
California, Enviro Groups Appeal Stay of Natural Gas Venting/Flaring Rule
Apr 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The State of California and a coalition of 16 environmental groups are appealing a decision by a federal judge in Wyoming to stay the implementation of parts of an Obama-era rule governing associated natural gas flaring and venting on public and tribal lands. -
Pennsylvania Court Wades into Uncharted Territory, Finds Shale Wells Could Trespass
Apr 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Pennsylvania’s shale gas producers are keeping a close eye on a court case that could find them liable for subsurface trespass if the rock fissures formed through hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques deep underground stretch beneath unleased property near drilling units. -
Advocates Seek to Resurrect Obama-Era Methane Rule
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Environmentalists challenged a federal judge's order putting an Obama-era rule on hold that addresses how oil and gas producers control natural gas emissions on federal lands. -
Cyber Attack ‘Wake-Up Call’ Puts Pipeline Industry Under Scrutiny
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
A cyber attack that U.S. natural gas pipeline owners weren't required to report has lawmakers taking a closer look at how the industry is handling such threats, raising the prospect of tighter regulation. -
Union Vote Planned for Safety Agency Trump Sought to Close
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Workers at a 40-person agency that investigates industrial accidents will vote whether to join the American Federation of Government Employees next week after staff discord and closure threats. -
EPA Cites Dozens Of Past Rule Delays To Justify Postponing RMP Update
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is touting a list of more than two dozen federal rules from 1983 to 2013 in which agencies have delayed existing regulations while weighing revisions to those policies, in response to an appellate court order to provide the list in a suit testing EPA's delay of an Obama-era facility safety rule while the agency reconsiders the regulation. -
Pruitt Said to Differ From White House, Wehrum On Vehicle GHG Approach
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A key White House official, the auto sector and EPA's own air chief are said to differ from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Transportation Department on how far to roll back light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and efficiency rules, amid uncertainty about whether Trump officials can avert a legal and political war on the issue with California. -
Ethanol backers seek to block suit over EPA's delayed RFS study
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
A group that supports EPA's renewable fuels standard (RFS) is seeking to block a Sierra Club suit that aims to force the agency to issue a congressionally mandated study on the environmental and air quality impacts of the standard, charging the group lacks standing to bring such a case. -
Hearing to Highlight States' Views of EPA
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
Cliched though it may be, the phrase sums up the spectrum of relationships between state air quality regulators and U.S. EPA that will be the subject of a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing tomorrow.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Hearing on Hurricane Harvey Lessons
Apr 9, 2018 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Witnesses:
Rear Adm. Paul Thomas, U.S. Coast Guard; Col. Lars Zetterstrom, Army Corps of Engineers; Beth Van Duyne, Department of Housing and Urban Development; R. Jack Cagle, commissioner, Harris County, Texas; Sylvester Turner, mayor, Houston; Mark Sloan, emergency management coordinator for the Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management; Allen Owen, mayor, Missouri City, Texas; and Carol Moore, disaster chairwoman, Texas State Conference for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
-
Hearing on Cooperative Federalism Under the Clean Air Act
Apr 10, 2018 | Environment and Public Works Committee
Witnesses:
Sean Alteri, director, Division of Air Quality, Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection; Toby Baker, commissioner, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Shaun Garvin, secretary, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; Matthew Rodriguez, secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency; and Nancy Vehr, administrator, Division of Air Quality, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.
-
Hearing on Rail Safety and Infrastructure
Apr 11, 2018 | Appropriations Subcommittee
Witnesses:
James Derwinski, CEO and executive director, Metra Commuter Rail; John Fry, president, Drexel University; Stephen Gardner, executive vice president, Amtrak; Ed Hamberger, president and CEO, Association of American Railroads.
-
Apr 12, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommitte
Witness:
Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
-
Apr 12, 2018 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee
-
Hearing on the Tariffs and U.S. Jobs
Apr 12, 2018 | Ways and Means Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Farmers to Trump: No Trade War, Please
Apr 6, 2018 | Politico
By Adam Behsudi, Catherine Boudreau and Doug Palmer
President Donald Trump has promised to shield farmers from the sting of China’s trade retaliation, but that embattled portion of Trump’s rural base says they just want to sell on the open market, without tariffs slapped on their products amid escalating tensions.
In interviews with POLITICO this week, several farmers across the country said they don’t want a trade war and they want to avoid having their income tied to government support to make up for losses created by one.
“We want our living to come from the marketplace,” said Mark Recker, a corn and soybean farmer in northeast Iowa.
But the threat of a trade war now looms as declining farm incomes have already forced farmers to delay major equipment purchases, diversify into other activities like livestock or even take second jobs.
China has threatened to impose duties on the $14 billion worth of soybeans it imports from the U.S. every year and a host of other farm goods as well as airplanes, chemicals and other U.S. goods in response to Trump’s recent trade actions. The most recent was the March 22 announcement to consider a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods to punish China for its intellectual property practices.
Trump upped the ante on Thursday in response to China’s countermeasure by asking administration officials to identify a further $100 billion in Chinese imports to put on the firing line.
Knowing that China — the second-biggest market for U.S. agricultural exports — will likely respond by continuing its assault on Trump’s rural base, the president, in a statement, said the administration “will use all of our authorities to ensure that we protect and preserve our agricultural interests.”
Support payments may remove some short-term pain, but farmers say the real damage would come in the long term.
“When we become a supplier that’s not reliable, countries look elsewhere,” said Recker, who currently serves as president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association. “This will embolden South America — Argentina and Brazil — to expand their acres and just make them even more of a competitor.”
Brian Duncan, who raises hogs and cattle and grows row crops in Ogle County, Illinois, and is vice president of the state’s Farm Bureau, told POLITICO that while he appreciates the president acknowledging that agricultural producers are going to take a hit, he is skeptical of the assistance being promised.
“We’ve spent decades trying to work ourselves away from government assistance,” Duncan said. “Part of that has been the development of foreign markets.”
He echoed Recker’s concerns about losing markets that the U.S. has spent years developing due to all the trade uncertainty, saying that the effects of a tit-for-tat dispute could ripple across generations.
Former USDA chief economist Joseph Glauber said the whole idea of paying off farmers to compensate for a trade action creates a “moral hazard.”
“To sort of buy them off, it almost gives free rein to pursue other trade wars, and I think that’s a real mistake,” said Glauber, now a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Pumping more financial support toward farmers could also fuel even more trade skirmishes as other countries challenge U.S measures at the World Trade Organization, he said.
The Agriculture Department last paid out ad hoc subsidies in the billions in the late 1990s and early 2000s. That resulted in a yearslong dispute with Brazil over U.S. cotton subsidies that ended with a major legal defeat for Washington and hundreds of millions in payments, Glauber noted.
While offering help to farmers, the Trump administration has revealed few details on what form it might take. A little-known agency called the Commodity Credit Corporation is a likely source of funding for the Trump administration’s farm sector rescue mission.
The Agriculture secretary has broad authority to support the farm sector using the CCC, which was created in the 1930s for the sole purpose of stabilizing and protecting crop prices and farm income. The financial institution has $100 million on hand that it borrows from Treasury, but can borrow up to $30 billion at any one time.
USDA, which already uses the CCC to fund farm subsidies and loans, resource conservation and emergency disaster programs, can essentially carry out any assistance using the CCC as long as it supports agriculture.
Congress in recent years has restricted this authority after appropriators raised concerns about USDA issuing nearly $350 million payments to certain industries in 2009. But that changed this year, when lawmakers lifted those restrictions in the most recent budget-busting $1.3 trillion omnibus spending deal — which Trump threatened to veto before declaring he’d never sign another one like it.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, during a tour through Ohio this week, has been reassuring farmers and ranchers that the Trump administration won’t leave them to bear the brunt of retaliation alone. In a statement to POLITICO on Thursday, Perdue said he “stands ready to defend agricultural producers who may be harmed” and he will use all his authorities to protect their interests.
While on the road, Perdue said Congress may have to take some “extraordinary measures” in the farm bill based on what happens in the trade dispute with China. The USDA has not shared details about what the secretary is considering.
Lawmakers are trying to pass a farm bill before a Sept. 30 deadline, though in the House a partisan fight over proposed changes to the food stamp program — which accounts for 80 percent of cost of the legislation — has upended what once expected to be a bipartisan process and cast uncertainty over whether it can attract enough votes.
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) told Reuters on Friday during a commodities conference that he assumed the Trump administration would try to use the farm bill to help farmers withstand market slumps, though no specific proposals have been suggested yet.
The farm bill doles out from $5 billion to $7 billion a year in commodity payments in response to price and revenue drops, while also subsidizing about 62 percent of farmers’ crop insurance premiums. Congress also recently approved $3 billion in ad hoc disaster assistance to help producers recover from hurricanes and wildfires last year, which the USDA is expected to begin sending out this summer.
Duncan, the farmer from Illinois, pointed out that lawmakers are having a tough time as it is writing a farm bill because they can’t spend any additional money beyond what current law is projected to cost over a decade. So sending out potentially billions of dollars to producers could be a tough sell.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said Trump “gets the importance of agriculture."
“When we actually sat down with him and talked about these issues, it was like a light bulb came on when he saw our market was dipping,” she told reporters in Iowa this week, recounting a White House meeting she and other senators had with Trump in December.
“I laid out a graph that showed every time he talked about tearing NAFTA up what it did to our hog markets and that he got and he was like, whoa. So he understands that,” she said.
But even as Trump recognizes the need for supporting U.S. farmers, the government does not “have enough money” to compensate every company that would be hurt in a trade war with China, said Rick Helfenbein, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association.
“It’s not something that can be subsidized. In the short term you might handle the farmers, but should everybody else get in line with their hands out and we can become the welfare state of exporters? It’s an almost childish idea that we’re going to pay the farmers to be quiet,” Helfenbein said.
China currently supplies more than 40 percent of all apparel imports into the United States. So AAFA member concerns are not being hit with new Chinese tariffs, but whether Chinese clothing and footwear appear on future U.S. retaliation lists. The apparel import sector breathed a big sigh of relief when it was left off Trump’s initial list, but fears it won’t be so lucky if USTR has to come up with $100 billion more product.
“What [Trump] did last night was outlandish,” Helfenbein said. “Enough is enough. Let’s sit down and talk. Let’s not threaten any more.”
The U.S. chemical industry is also caught in the crossfire of the escalating trade dispute. Nearly 40 percent of the $50 billion worth of products on China’s initial retaliation list are chemicals, threatening an important sector of the U.S. economy that currently runs about a $32 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world.
Like farming, the U.S. has developed a competitive advantage with its chemicals industry over the past 10 years as the shale gas revolution has turned it from a high-cost producer to a low-cost producer, which appears to have caught Beijing’s attention.
“I think China is also seeing that we have this global competitive advantage and we’ve become a target,” said Cal Dooley, a former member of Congress who now heads the American Chemistry Council.
He said it’s frustrating that Trump is imposing tariffs to support less competitive sectors like steel and aluminum, while exposing more competitive sectors like agriculture and chemicals to China’s retaliation.
“It’s absolutely not a realistic policy that the administration has the ability to make farmers whole or to make the chemical industry whole,” Dooley said. “The bottom line is the U.S. chemical industry is not looking to the government to provide a handout or support. We are fully capable of being made whole by being competitive in the global market place.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/06/farmers-trump-trade-war-467423
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade War Fears Escalate as Trump Ups Ante
Apr 6, 2018 | The Hill
By Niv Elis
Markets dropped precipitously on Friday amid fears of a growing trade war between the United States and China.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 700 points as White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted years of Chinese policies were to blame for the tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by the world’s largest two economies against one another were.
The Dow recovered slightly before the end of the trading end, falling 572 points.
Trump administration officials insisted there was no trade war even as trade groups in Washington and GOP lawmakers expressed alarm at the back and forth.
“We are not in a trade war,” insisted White House chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow, who before joining the administration served as a longtime CNBC host and was seen as a free-trade advocate.
“What this is is an attempt to right some of the wrongs with respect to China,” he said.
The sense that the trade war was intensifying mounted Thursday when President Trump surprised observers by announcing a possible expansion of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods by $100 billion. Trump had previously announced $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods as a response to intellectual property concerns in China, and $3 billion in tariffs on aluminum and steel imports.
“It makes us nervous, for sure,” said Aaron Low, senior vice president of regulatory and government affairs at the Auto Care Association, a group that advocates on behalf of the auto repair industry.
China has already announced retaliation for the first $53 billion in U.S. tariffs, and could be expected to respond to the next $100 billion if it is implemented — though this would nearly equal total U.S. exports to China.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley, a former Democratic congressman from California, said the tariffs amounted to misguided economic policy.
“When we have the administration implementing import tariffs primarily targeted at some of the less competitive industries, what we’re seeing is retaliation against the most competitive industries, the ones that are growing and creating jobs,” he said.
Republicans have scrambled to find a middle ground between Trump’s aggressive trade sense, which is opposed to the party’s free trade orthodoxy, and supporting the president who is still popular among the party’s base.
“This is not the way I would do it, throw the hand grenade in the middle of the room and count the bodies,” he said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) in an interview for WTAW radio. “But it’s working,” he added.
Others have been more critical. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said that while the U.S. needed to address trade challenges head on, “we cannot exacerbate these challenges with self-inflicted harm.”
The expanding list of potential tariffs is opening the possibility that China would find new ways to strike back at the U.S.
China only imported $130 billion-worth of American goods in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. As a result, if Trump expands his tariff list to $150 billion, China would not be able to match the threat using tariffs alone.
“We could see complications arise in terms of foreign exchange and the Chinese currency reaction, plus the possibility of China selling off some of its treasury holdings. That has negative growth implications,” said Goldman Sachs chief U.S. political economist Alec Phillips.
By making its currency artificially cheap, as it has done in the past, China could lower the dollar price of both Chinese goods and American tariffs, while making American goods more expensive for Chinese consumers.
If the country decides to sell off some of its massive collection of U.S. debt, a move that likely would be seen as a major escalation, China could tighten the financial market in the U.S., though it would risk lowering the value of the remaining American debt it owns.
The Asian giant could also seek to make it difficult for U.S. financial, travel and other services industries to operate in China. The U.S. has a $38 billion trade surplus in services.
China has criticized Trump for the sanctions, and has sought to close ranks with the European Union, which has also criticized Trump over steel and aluminum tariffs imposed on imports around the globe.
“China and the EU... should take a clear stance against protectionism, jointly preserve the rules-based multilateral trade order, and keep the global economy on a sound and sustainable track,” said Zhang Ming, the head of the Chinese mission to the EU, according to AFP.
According to the report, European Commission spokesman Daniel Rosario only reiterated the belief that “free and fair trade is one of the most powerful engines for growth, supporting millions of jobs and contributing to prosperity.”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/382020-trade-war-fears-escalate-as-trump-ups-ante
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Markets Are Bouncing Back as Concern over Trump's Trade War Eases
Apr 6, 2018 | GkMen
By Bennie Garza
China, by contrast, has unique tools to counteract US tariffs, according to analysts. Along with increasing regulations and bans from Google, the trade war threats have also been eroding crypto investor's sentiment.
Their reluctance is partly a matter of semantics.
But far from the U.S. and China coming to the table and forging an agreement to open up trade, morerounds of trade barriers could be announced with growing economic damage and no resolution in sight.
"In itself it's a nebulous word", said Jagdish Bhagwati, a professor of economics at Columbia University. I'll nearly certainly never have a trade surplus with them, but it doesn't bother me.
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow has stressed that USA tariffs on Chinese goods are only proposals, and Beijing is still only offering up a tentative menu of tariffs in response.
For example, in its planned retaliatory tariffs, the Chinese government included narrow-body aircraft but not wide-body aircraft.
"Even shooting wars end with negotiations", he said.
This news site is officially out of the business of defending Donald Trump. A trade war remains a tail risk and they might back themselves into a corner where all-out war is the only option, but we're a long way from that.
In 2017, China was the third-largest buyer of US LNG behind Mexico and South Korea, bringing in around 15% of total exports.
But those tariffs alone don't constitute a trade war, experts say.
Scott Lincicome, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and an worldwide trade attorney, said Trump's implemented tariffs are already causing real pain for USA companies and farmers forced to cope with sudden and unexpected high prices and new tariffs as well as chaos in various markets.
"But buying remained limited as investors are still concerned about several uncertain elements, including a US-led trade war", Sato told AFP.
For their part, Chinese officials said they won't capitulate to USA demands. -China trade war anything more than sabre rattling?
The head of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) on Wednesday urged the US and Chinese governments to resolve their differences on trade, cautioning that an escalation could weaken the economic case for USA chemical projects.
Washington on Tuesday proposed $50 billion in duties on Chinese goods aimed at forcing Beijing to address what the United States says is deeply entrenched theft of US intellectual property and forced technology transfer from USA companies.
NEGOTIATING STRATEGYThe threat to impose additional 25 percent tariffs on imports from China worth up to $50 billion fits with the Trump administration's typical negotiating pattern. The company said it "will continue to engage both governments" as the sides note that "productive talks are ongoing".
Trump, while less predictable than Xi, is likely factoring the anxious stock market and the upcoming midterm elections into his trade decisions, Baumohl said.
Republicans already are confronting signs that Democrats have a solid chance to seize control of the majority in the House of Representatives, with Democratic voter disdain for Mr Trump driving up turnout.
And Englund said that Trump might be more amenable to compromise because, as he puts it, "Trump doesn't need much of a victory to declare victory". Republican lawmakers from Western and Midwestern states have voiced worries about a big hit to US farming exporters.
Obviously this news site has never had an issue calling Trump out when we disagreed with him, but until this spring it's safe to say we classified ourselves as supporters of the president. "I would anticipate that if there are no changes to the behavior of China. then we would move forward".
http://gkmen.com/2018/04/06/global-markets-are-bouncing-back-as-concern-over-trumps/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Needs to Go—but So Do Others in Pruitt's Conflicted and Corrupt EPA
Apr 6, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Andrew Rosenberg
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt seems to have a penchant for scandalous behavior, from misuse of public funds to special deals with corporate lobbyists. It was hard to keep up this week with Pruitt press. Sometimes it is hard to remember that each of these inappropriate actions by the Administrator is connected to an action that undermines public health and safety protections, as described by my colleague Josh Goldman.
And there is really no question that it is time for Pruitt to leave the agency that he leads. He has done more than enough damage to the work of the EPA, sidelining science at the expense of Americans’ health and safety. I certainly hope that the White House hears from Congress and the public that we have all had enough of Mr. Pruitt.
Unfortunately, it will take more than just change at the top for the EPA to once again serve the critical mission it is charged with by Congress—and that all of us in the public need. Mr. Pruitt has filled key positions in the agencies with lobbyists for regulated industry, cronies from Oklahoma and others with deeply held positions in opposition to the agency’s mission.The year of hiring dangerously
Several months ago I wrote that too many of the Trump Administration’s appointees either have deep conflicts of interest, are opposed to the mission of the agencies they are appointed to, or are fundamentally unqualified. At the EPA, all of those problems are on prominent display, and they don’t end when and if Pruitt is shown the door.
One of the scandals revealed this week is that Mr. Pruitt used a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to appoint Dr. Nancy Beck outside of civil service rules and the ethics requirements of the Trump Administration. He did this because, at the behest of the chemical industry, he wanted former lobbyist Beck to re-write (read: weaken) chemical safety rules. Dr. Beck couldn’t meet President Trump’s own ethics requirements because she previously lobbied for the American Chemistry Council (ACC) on those very rules and therefore has a deep conflict of interest. The result: the implementation of the Chemical Safety Act has been weakened and—shockingly—the rules now fully reflect the ACC stated desires, ignoring input from all other interested parties—like public health experts and affected communities.
Or this week, Mr. Pruitt withdrew common sense automotive fuel efficiency standards that clean our air and save drivers money at the pump. These are standards the auto industry had negotiated and applauded when taxpayers were footing the bill for a huge industry bailout in 2008. Nonetheless, Mr. Pruitt, working with the automakers trade group withdrew that standard without any supporting analysis. Integral to that rollback was EPA Senior Clean Air Advisor William Wehrum, a lawyer for oil, gas, coal and chemical industries. During his career he sued the EPA more than 30 times to rollback public health protections. Not only does he have conflicts of interest because of his recent clients, but this record shows he is largely opposed to the EPA’s mission. Recently he was the architect of a new EPA legal interpretation that has the potential to dramatically increase emissions of hazardous, cancer-causing pollutants from industrial facilities all around the country.Conflicted and corrupted
Mr. Pruitt has also brought on board EPA staff Dr. Richard Yamada in the Office of Research and Development. Dr. Yamada previously worked with Rep. Lamar Smith (R–TX) to push forward legislative efforts to give regulated industries more seats on EPA’s Science Advisory Boards, as well as excluding certain peer-reviewed science the agency can consider when implementing health and safety protections. Neither of those efforts were successful in Congress. Undaunted, Mr. Pruitt and Dr. Yamada are pushing their implementation by administrative directives, circumventing the will of Congress. They are busy excluding independent scientists from serving as advisors while packing the Boards with industry-based scientists that have been employed to cast doubt on the need for public health protections.
For example, one of their recent advisory board appointees has argued that“modern air is a little too clean for optimum health” and needs to be dirtier to protect the public. At the same time, Dr. Yamada is crafting rules to exclude from consideration many public health studies unless all the underlying raw data is released to the public. But since they are studies of public health they rely on the private medical information of real people that can’t be made public. In other words, the EPA shouldn’t use public health science to protect public health. That’s what I mean when I say some appointees seem fundamentally opposed to the mission of the agency.
The collection of conflicted aides stretches into the dozens.
Another on the list: Liz Bowman, Associate Administrator for Public Affairs and Pruitt’s lead spokesperson (and former chemical industry exec) has sought to mislead the American public about Mr. Pruitt’s long list of scandals. Elizabeth “Tate” Bennett, who previously lobbied with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, also faced pushback from Senators over the significant conflicts of interest she would face in her job with EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Erik Baptist, a former lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, joined Pruitt’s EPA as a top lawyer who was approved to advise Pruitt on the renewable fuel law.
And finally, there are the close aides Mr. Pruitt brought in with him to make the unprecedented assault on our children’s and families’ health and safety. One notable name is Albert “Kell” Kelly—disgraced banker (banned from banking for life by the FDIC) and friend of Pruitt from Oklahoma who has no environmental background, but was nonetheless hired to run the cleanup of Superfund sites. Twenty-five million Americans live within 10 miles of these highly toxic industrial waste sites—relicts of the days before polluting industries were regulated by the EPA. It should not escape anyone’s notice that these are the good ol’ days that Mr. Pruitt and his inner circle would like us to return to.
So, yes, Mr. Pruitt, we’re ready to say bye bye. But when you go, please take your corrupt and conflicted colleagues with you (more than I could name in a single post). The EPA needs to get back to doing what we need it to do—protect public health and safety. We don’t need the most extreme positions of some industry groups that oppose any and all regulation at the expense of our children and families. We need EPA and its many highly skilled and committed civil servants, scientists, policy experts, administrative professionals, lawyers and enforcement officers to do the jobs that they do so well. On behalf of all of us—the public.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/andrew-rosenberg/pruitt-needs-to-go-but-so-do-others-in-pruitts-conflicted-and-corrupt-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Saudi Chemical Maker Eyeing Houston for Americas Headquarters
Apr 8, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Saudi Basic Industries Corp. proposed building a Houston headquarters for its Western Hemisphere operations as the Middle East’s dominant chemical maker seeks to capitalize on the U.S. shale boom.
Sabic, as the company is known, said a final decision will be contingent on receiving local and environmental permits, according to a statement Saturday. The announcement coincided with the final stop by Saudi Crown Price Mohammed Bin Salman on his three-week U.S. tour.
Sabic “has designated the United States as a focus of its future growth plans, capitalizing on the abundance of shale gas,” according to the statement. Bin Salman, the heir to the Saudi throne who has sought to broaden the kingdom’s economy beyond oil, attended the announcement.
To read about another prospective Saudi investment in the U.S., click here
Saudi Arabia is increasing chemical production with demand for motor fuels expected to slow amid tightening fuel efficiency standards and the rise of electric vehicles. Fracking and horizontal drilling in shale formations have unleashed torrents of cheap U.S. natural gas that made the country among the most profitable places to produce chemicals, beating the Middle East in attracting projects.Plastics Plants
DowDuPont Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. are putting the finishing touches on multibillion-dollar factories along the Texas Gulf Coast, part of $188 billion in proposed and recently completed project, according to the American Chemistry Council.
Almost 20 factories are being built or expanded to convert gas liquids such as ethane and propane into ethylene, the most used petrochemical and the main ingredient in polyethylene plastic.
Most of the investment is coming from abroad. South Africa’s Sasol Ltd. is spending $11 billion on a chemical complex outside Lake Charles, Louisiana. France’s Total SA, South Korea’s Lotte Chemical Corp. and Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Corp. also are investing in U.S. factories.
Sabic has formed a joint venture with Exxon Mobil to build an ethylene plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, with a final investment decision expected this year. The heart of the project features what would be the world’s largest ethane cracker, capable of producing 1.8 million metric tons of ethylene.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-07/saudi-chemical-maker-eyeing-houston-for-americas-headquarters
-
Apr 7, 2018 | Business Insider
By Matthew Michaels
Grocery stores — whether your local store or a big-box chain — have tons of items in stock and many for a fair, reasonable price. But that doesn't mean it should be your one-stop shop for anything you need to buy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average American spends more than $4,000 a year on food for the home. That's in addition to the over $3,000 spent per person on food outside the home. Meals rack up big costs.
Still, it can seem difficult to save money when grocery shopping. One way to trim expenses is to make a list and stick to it — but that's not the only saving strategy that works.
Shopping online, using price matches, waiting for products to go on sale, and meal planning are other ways to save money on groceries. You can also figure out which stores have the best prices on different products. It may seem like a hassle to shop in multiple locations, but the savings can be worth the sacrifice.
Throwing away food that was never used is another problem worth solving. The American Chemistry Council found that the average household wastes $640 in groceries per year — over $50 a month.
In addition to these steps, there are certain groceries you should think twice before buying. The 16 products below could be the cause of sky high grocery bills — and skipping them can help you save money on your next trip to the grocery store.
Out of season vegetables
Not only will buying corn in the winter be more expensive than in the summer, as Erin Brodwin of Business Insider reported, but off-season produce travels from further away and will perish sooner.
Anything on the checkout rack
Those candy bars and gossip magazines are put there for a reason. As Business Insider's Kate Taylor reported, stores try to capitalize on customers willingness to spend a few extra bucks on impulse purchases found at the checkout line.
Gluten-free products
Unless, of course, you have celiac disease and need to keep a diet without gluten. Gluten-free products have been found to be on average of 242% more expensive than their gluten counterparts by The National Center for Biotechnology Information — and some foods can be as much as five times more expensive, as Reuters found.
Brand name drugs
As Business Insider previously reported, generic drugs are required by law to be as effective as the brand name product and are often a small fraction of the price. Go for the generic.
Tomato sauce
It is usually cheaper — and probably tastes better — to make your own tomato sauce from canned or fresh tomatoes than buying a jar of premade red marinara, as registered dietitian Owennie Leerecommends.
Individual items
It is often cheaper to buy items — such as paper towels or pet food — in bulk, says One Good Thing. The lower cost per unit will help savings even if the one time cost is higher.
Bulk Items
However, you can go too far in the other direction. If you buy products in bulk that eventually expire unused, it might be better to get a smaller size next time. One Good Thing says that produce should definitely not be bought by the bag.
Sugary snacks
Sugar doesn't fill you up, according to Scientific America; it only makes you hungrier. Sugary snacks also don't help your waistline and can disrupt your meal schedule.
Soft drinks
Americans are ditching soda as the health consequences become more obvious. Soft drinks — as the Daily News found out — dehydrate, creating more thirst and desire to drink more soda, and many cities have created a soda tax, making these beverages costly.
Sugary juices
Juices are promoted as a healthy alternative to fruit, but the sugary drinks are often bereft of the implied benefits, Business Insider's Erin Brodwin found. Instead of a glass of OJ, save your wallet and waist by just sticking to eating an actual orange.
Energy drinks
Between Monster and 5 Hour Energy, energy drinks have scary side effects as Business Insider has reported. Nutritionist Andy Bellatti told Business Insider of cheaper groceries to buy — such as oatmeal or black beans — if you need to keep up your energy levels throughout the day.
Bottled water
Water is everywhere, so you don't need to purchase it by the bottle. Americans now drink more bottled water than soda, Kate Taylor reported, even though Business Insider discovered that it costs $1.22 per gallon for a commodity that can be accessed for next to nothing.
Trail mix
Buying the ingredients separately and combining them yourself will usually cost less than buying pre-made trail. You can even customize the snack by adding or subtracting mix-ins, or changing the ratio, to what you prefer.
Pre-made patties or meatballs
Using ground beef to form homemade meatballs or burgers is incredibly simple. Cut out the convenience cost and create your very own meat creations that don't come from a frozen bag.
Office and school supplies
Instead of an all-purpose grocery store, you'll find lower prices buying notebooks and printer ink from a specialty store like Staples or Office Depot.
Home maintenance equipment
That advice doesn't just go for office supplies. Not surprisingly, hardware stores are better for getting hardware than grocery stores are. There will be a better selection, better prices, and more knowledgeable staff.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-save-money-on-groceries-2018-3?utm_source=hearst&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=allverticals#home-maintenance-equipment-16
-
After Targeting U.S. Farms, China Can Strike America's Shale
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Heesu Lee and Stephen Stapczynski
China's tariffs in one corner of the energy market signal U.S. shale fields may follow the nation's farms as a target if a trade war escalates.
Beijing on April 4 took aim at America's rural heartland by proposing levies on politically sensitive farm commodities such as soybeans, which were among 106 U.S. products targeted. The list also included petrochemicals and liquefied propane, indicating that the world's biggest oil buyer is willing to use energy as a weapon to retaliate against planned American duties on its high-tech goods.
While officials from the world's two largest economies had sought to calm markets by showing a willingness to negotiate, U.S. President Donald Trump on April 5 ordered his administration to consider tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese imports. The Asian nation is the biggest regional buyer of American oil as well as liquefied natural gas, and the critical commodities may be swept up in the trade war if tensions flare further.
“China can ditch American energy at any time because there's plenty of supplies elsewhere, whereas for the U.S., energy is a sensitive subject,” said Will Yun, a commodities analyst at Hyundai Futures Corp. in Seoul. “The two countries may eventually come to an agreement and China may not use energy so soon into the dispute. It will use the card wisely.”
China's Commerce Ministry said April 6 that the country would counter U.S. protectionism and “will follow suit to the end and at any cost, and will firmly attack, using new comprehensive countermeasures, to firmly defend the interest of the nation and its people.”
The soybean tariffs showed China is willing to strike the U.S. where it hurts, with the April 4 announcement ending weeks of speculation over whether Xi's government would target the commodity that it buys in huge volumes from America and is essential to feed its citizens’ growing appetite for pork. The market reaction was immediate: the oilseed led a tumble in agricultural prices, with corn and cotton also declining.
Energy Costs
“Moving to different sources of energy supply is unlikely to have a significant impact on industry input costs as they are commodity items,” said Stuart Orr, a professor in the faculty of business and law at Australia's Deakin University. “It will inevitably increase the cost of energy for the growing Chinese middle-class which is rapidly adopting high-energy consuming lifestyles.”
While the proposed tariff on American propane probably won't hurt U.S. companies as much as intended, Yuanta Securities Co. predicts duties on oil will rattle investors. “If China shows its willingness to impose tariffs on crude, it will send a shock wave through markets,” said Min Byungkyu, a global strategist at the brokerage.
A surge in U.S. crude exports has helped drain inventories and prop up oil prices, which are still recovering from the biggest crash in a generation after a global glut wreaked havoc on the market. OPEC producers and allies including Russia are curbing output to shrink the oversupply, while surging output in shale fields from Texas to North Dakota threaten to undermine those cuts.
Export Surge
U.S. oil net exports to China averaged about 435,000 barrels a day in 2017, more than double a year earlier, when they averaged about 180,000 barrels a day, according to a Citigroup Inc. report dated April 3. The notional dollar value rose even faster—at a rate of 200 percent—to about $8.24 billion last year, the bank said.
China bought about 750 million cubic feet a day worth of American LNG in the fourth quarter, the most of any country, according to U.S. government data.
The Asian nation's imports and U.S. exports of crude and natural gas liquids “should both grow materially over the next five years, implying that the Trump administration should push back forcefully on any Chinese move to impose tariffs on energy trade if they want to reduce the trade deficit,” analysts including Christopher Main and Ed Morse wrote in the report.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131340753&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131340753&jd=131340753
-
Middle East Emerges as Possible Energy Winner in U.S.-China Spat
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ann Koh
The Middle East is emerging as a potential beneficiary of the brewing trade war between the U.S. and China as the Asian nation strikes back with retaliatory tariffs on American petrochemical products.
If China goes ahead with its proposal to slap a 25 percent tariff on polyethylene and liquid propane, which were among 106 American goods targeted, buyers in the Asian nation may look elsewhere for alternatives to pricier U.S. supplies. And the energy-rich Middle East with plenty of petrochemical supplies looks well-suited to meet the substitution requirements.
The region is already China's biggest source for polyethylene—one of the most commonly used plastics in the world—and can further boost exports to the country along with another major seller South Korea, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. China may need to replace 2.3 million metric tons of PE next year if the tariffs are implemented, the bank said.
China imports 12.7 million tons of the product a year, of which the U.S. currently accounts for only 600,000 tons, Goldman estimates. But purchases from the U.S. have the potential to grow more than threefold over the next two years if the tariffs aren't implemented, it said.
As for propane, China is the third-biggest export market for the U.S. and has boosted purchases from there in recent years. Although the tariffs won't hurt America as much as intended, the most likely alternative option is the Middle East as more supplies come on stream there, according to industry consultant Energy Aspects Ltd.
In particular, Iran stands out as a likely beneficiary as the Persian Gulf nation can sell the gas at a discount to regional contract prices, said FGE consultant Ong Han Wee. “Iran is an attractive alternative,” he said. “Chinese companies will have to diversify their supply sources more toward Iran.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131340752&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131340752&jd=131340752
-
Scott Pruitt is Unfit to Serve
Apr 6, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
The blizzard of ethical questions surrounding Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has become a Category 5 storm. Already facing big questions about his wasteful spending and relationships with lobbyists, Mr. Pruitt intensified his problems by dishonestly blaming his stafffor one major ethical failure. Then the New York Times revealed that staffers who tried to rein in Mr. Pruitt’s unnecessary spending were punished. More than ever, it is clear that Mr. Pruitt is unfit to serve.
Mr. Pruitt, who has eschewed contact with mainstream media in favor of sympathetic conservative outlets, took to Fox News on Wednesday to defend himself. But under questioning from Fox News’s Ed Henry, Mr. Pruitt was unable to explain how two of his favorite staffers got massive, unauthorized pay raises that the White House had previously rejected. The administrator claimed he did not know who on his staff was responsible for the end run around the White House and that he only heard about the raises the previous day. Yet The Post’s Juliet Eilperin, Brady Dennis and Josh Dawsey reportedsubsequently that Mr. Pruitt had, in fact, ordered the raises. It is still unclear how involved he was in circumventing the White House’s rejection of those raises, but his total denial of responsibility on Fox News does not square with the reported record.
Meanwhile, the New York Times revealed Thursday that five EPA staffers who questioned Mr. Pruitt’s lavish spending were reassigned or demoted. These staffers raised concerns about first-class travel, costly security upgrades, and expensive office furniture and renovations. One of them fought buying Mr. Pruitt a $100,000-per-month charter aircraft membership, spending $70,000 to replace two office desks and wasting $43,000 on a soundproof booth in the administrator’s office. Another objected to using flashing lights and sirens to shuttle Mr. Pruitt through Washington traffic — including to dinner at the French restaurant Le Diplomate. Several of the staffers raised concerns about Mr. Pruitt flying first class, a habit the administrator indulged in more often after one of them was sidelined. An EPA spokesman claimed that Mr. Pruitt was unaware of some of these extravagant outlays and rejected the notion that concerned staffers had been punished, but the administrator has already shown what his denials are worth.
Capping off the week, EPA ethics officers walked back their clearance of Mr. Pruitt’s sketchy condo rental deal, revealing that they had not been given all the relevant information necessary to make a reasonable call. The administrator rented a room in a Capitol Hill condo for $50 a night — but only paid for the nights he spent in residence, and his daughter was allowed to use a second bedroom. He got this sweetheart deal from the wife of a prominent energy and environmental lobbyist whose clients obtained favorable treatment from the EPA while Mr. Pruitt was staying at the condo.
In any normal administration, Mr. Pruitt would be gone. Instead, even as revelations about Mr. Pruitt piled up this week, Mr. Trump was reportedly still entertaining the idea of installing Mr. Pruitt as attorney general, a position for which his primary qualification may be willingness to squelch the Russia investigation. An ideologue who has arrogantly abused his position, Mr. Pruitt does not deserve a promotion. He deserves to be fired.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scott-pruitt-is-unfit-to-serve/2018/04/06/1c82f2bc-39c0-11e8-acd5-35eac230e514_story.html?utm_term=.ac79696b5a02
-
In His Haste to Roll Back Rules, Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. Chief, Risks His Agenda
Apr 7, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport and Lisa Friedman
As ethical questions threaten the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Scott Pruitt, President Trump has defended him with a persuasive conservative argument: Mr. Pruitt is doing a great job at what he was hired to do, roll back regulations.
But legal experts and White House officials say that in Mr. Pruitt’s haste to undo government rules and in his eagerness to hold high-profile political events promoting his agenda, he has often been less than rigorous in following important procedures, leading to poorly crafted legal efforts that risk being struck down in court.
The result, they say, is that the rollbacks, intended to fulfill one of the president’s central campaign pledges, may ultimately be undercut or reversed.
“In their rush to get things done, they’re failing to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. And they’re starting to stumble over a lot of trip wires,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “They’re producing a lot of short, poorly crafted rulemakings that are not likely to hold up in court.”
Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution.
The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions.
In other cases — including one in which a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to act on a Connecticut request to reduce pollution from a Pennsylvania power plant, and one where judges demanded quick action from the agency on new lead paint standards — the courts warned Mr. Pruitt that avoiding enacting regulations already on the books was an inappropriate effort to repeal a rule without justifying the action.
“The E.P.A. has a clear duty to act,” a panel of judges of the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote in a 2-1 decision finding that the agency must revise its lead paint standards in 90 days, as regulations required. The agency had tried to delay the revisions for six years.
In an interview on Friday, the White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump felt that Mr. Pruitt had done a satisfactory job at the EPA. Her comments suggested that Mr. Pruitt’s work checking off items on the president’s agenda — including rolling back a large number of environmental protections — may weigh heavily as a counterbalance to the ethics questions related to his travel expenses, management practices and his rental of a living space from the wife of a prominent lobbyist.
Describing Mr. Trump’s view of Mr. Pruitt, she said: “He likes the work product.”
Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, disputed the criticisms of the agency’s work. “E.P.A. does its due diligence, consults with O.M.B. and other federal agencies to ensure that its work is legally defensible,” she said in an email, referring to the Office of Management and Budget, the office that coordinates and evaluates policy across the executive branch.
One of the chief examples cited by Mr. Pruitt’s critics came this week when the E.P.A. filed its legal justification for what is arguably the largest rollback of an environmental rule in the Trump administration: the proposed undoing of an Obama-era regulation aimed at cutting pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipes.
Mr. Pruitt made his case for the rollback in a 38-page document filed on Tuesday that, experts say, was devoid of the kind of supporting legal, scientific and technical data that courts have shown they expect to see when considering challenges to regulatory changes.
“There’s an incredible lack of numbers,” said James McCargar, a former senior policy analyst at the E.P.A. who worked on vehicle emissions programs and remains in close touch with career staffers who work on those programs. “If this gets challenged in court, I just don’t see how they provide anything that gives a technical justification to undo the rule.”
The rules Mr. Pruitt is targeting would require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Automakers have argued the rule is onerous, forcing them to invest heavily in building hybrid and electric vehicles.
As part of the process, Mr. Pruitt filed the 38-page document, which is meant to supply the government’s legal justification for rolling back the rule. About half the document consists of quotations from automakers laying out their objections to the rule. By comparison, the Obama administration’s 1,217-page document justifying its implementation of the regulation included technical, scientific and economic analyses justifying the rule.
Experts in environmental policy said the lack of analytical arguments in this week’s E.P.A. filing surprised them. “This document is unprecedented,” said Mr. McCargar, the former E.P.A. senior policy analyst. “The E.P.A. has just never done anything like this.”
John M. DeCicco, a professor of engineering and public policy at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, said the filing was a departure from the practices of previous Republican and Democratic administrations.
“A president or an administrator or somebody can’t just say, ‘I’m going to change the rule,’ without justifying it very, very carefully,” Mr. DeCicco said. “As a scientist who’s worked on these issues, I’m saying, where are the numbers? Where’s the data?”
Most of the document consists of arguments quoting directly from public comments made by automaker lobbyists, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Global Automakers, that the pollution rules will be unduly burdensome on the auto industry, as well as public comments from Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi.
While it does include arguments opposing the regulatory rollback from groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the state of California, it does not contain what environmental experts say is the critical element of a legally strong justification for changing an E.P.A. regulation: Technical analysis of both sides of the argument leading to a conclusion aimed at persuading a judge that the change is defensible.
Seth Michaels, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested that, in its reuse of arguments by the automakers’ lobby, the emissions-rollback document echoed Mr. Pruitt’s modus operandi when he was the Oklahoma Attorney General.
“It’s reminiscent of the 2011 letter Scott Pruitt sent as Oklahoma AG to the E.P.A., in which he took a letter drafted by lawyers for Devon Energy and stuck his name on it with minimal edits,” Mr. Michaels said.
A 2014 investigation by The Times found that lobbyists for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas company, drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and President Obama, outlining the economic hardship of various environmental rules.
Between 2011 and 2017, Mr. Pruitt filed suit against the E.P.A. 14 times, and lost almost all of the cases.
Most were filed in conjunction with the Republican attorneys general of a dozen or more other states, making it difficult to know precisely which legal arguments his office contributed, legal experts said. Mr. Pruitt frequently took a lead role in the cases.
In the end, “a lot of those arguments were losers,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University.
In particular, Mr. Revesz noted a case brought by the group against President Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which Mr. Pruitt is now working to overturn from within the E.P.A. The lawsuit challenged a draft proposal of the regulation, which was an unprecedented move that a federal court quickly struck down, saying that they could not legally challenge a draft.
While the attorneys general, including Mr. Pruitt, garnered media attention for the case, “The argument they had was ludicrous,” Mr. Revesz said.
The group did, however, score one major victory: After the Obama administration issued its final version of the Clean Power Plan, it successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to temporarily halt implementation of the rule.
Since taking the helm of E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt has barnstormed the country, meeting with farmers, coal miners and local leaders and promising an end to his predecessor’s regulatory approach. He also has favored closed-door policy speeches to conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, to roll out policy initiatives.
The Heritage Foundation was the venue Mr. Pruitt chose this year to say that he would make changes to how scientific studies are consideredat the agency. Both critics and supporters of Mr. Pruitt said that, by making the proposal in a political fashion rather than changing the rules in a quieter but potentially more lasting way means that changes like these are more vulnerable to being undone by a future administration.
Environmental groups have welcomed Mr. Pruitt’s court losses. Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, said she was pleased by what she called “sloppy” and “careless” E.P.A. legal work. “It’s fine with us,” she said. “Do a bad job repealing these things, because then we get to go to court and win.”
Thomas J. Pyle, a supporter of Mr. Pruitt’s and the president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that promotes fossil fuels, described that as spin. “The environmental left portrays Scott Pruitt as a devil incarnate in their fund-raising solicitations, yet brag about how ineffective he is in dismantling Obama’s climate rules,” he said. “Which is it?”
Still, some conservatives said they were worried that Mr. Pruitt was more interested in media attention than policy and feared more legal losses. “If the goal is to generate temporary relief and to make a splash, then what they’re doing is terrifically fine,” said Jonathan H. Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
But if the Trump administration wants to permanently change the regulatory environment for business, he said, the E.P.A. cannot take such a “quick and dirty approach” to unraveling regulations. “I’m suspicious that two, three years down the road there’s going to be much to show for all the fireworks we’re getting now,” Mr. Adler said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-rollbacks.html
-
As Pruitt Hangs on, Deputy Pick Readies for Vote
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Geof Koss
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt remains in his job and could soon have his deputy in place — unless controversy overtakes them both.
As early as this week, the Senate could consider the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be deputy administrator. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) set the stage for a procedural vote before recess.
Democrats will likely use floor time slated to debate Wheeler's nomination to bash both him and Pruitt. If Pruitt goes, they know a confirmed Wheeler would rise in prominence.
A series of ethics allegations have engulfed the administrator, from excessive spending proposals like a bulletproof desk and a charter jet membership to renting a Capitol Hill condo linked to a lobbyist whose firm's clients have business before the agency.
But by Saturday night, President Trump took to Twitter to express support for Pruitt while also dismissing many of the reports surrounding the EPA chief's behavior.
"Scott is doing a great job!" he said, calling the condo's $50 per night rent "market rate" and first-class travel expenses "OK."
And while Pruitt's personal security spending has spiked compared to predecessors, Trump noted his EPA administrator has "received death threats because of his bold actions."
That security spending has now reached into the millions of dollars. The Associated Press reported Friday the price tag for Pruitt's personal detail had cost the agency nearly $3 million in pay and travel expenses.Pressure for and against ouster
With Pruitt in jeopardy, his allies went on a lobbying campaign to save it. Conservative leaders signed onto a letter in support of the former Oklahoma attorney general.
Republican lawmakers, like leaders of the Congressional Western Caucus, put out a statement backing the administrator. And talking points circulated listing Pruitt's moves to roll back regulations.
Meanwhile, Democrats were calling for Pruitt to resign. On Friday, 64 House Democrats signed onto a letter organized by Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and David Cicilline (D-R.I.) telling Trump the EPA chief had to go.
Some Republicans have also taken an interest in Pruitt's ethics allegations. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is looking into the condo lease, including asking for both of EPA's ethics memos.
"The committee has been looking into Pruitt's condo deal. EPA produced documents to the committee this week, including both the March 30 and April 4 memos," a Republican committee aide told E&E News.The Wheeler factor
Pruitt's troubles have only cast greater attention on Wheeler. If confirmed, he would replace the administrator if Pruitt were to get fired or resign.
Wheeler is a familiar face on Capitol Hill, having been a longtime aide to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Wheeler's lobbying work for coal giant Murray Energy Corp. has attracted opposition from several Democrats.
But one red-state Democratic senator, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), has already said she will vote for Wheeler.
"After meeting with Mr. Wheeler and reviewing his record, I've decided to support his nomination," she said in a statement.
"I believe he'll be open to working on issues important to North Dakota in a pragmatic and fair way, and I'll hold him accountable to make sure he implements the mission of the EPA in a way that works for my state," she said.
Heitkamp was also one of two Democrats who voted to confirm Pruitt. The other was Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). A Manchin spokesman told E&E News that he hadn't discussed with the senator his position on Wheeler's nomination.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the lone Republican to vote against Pruitt's nomination. Aides didn't respond to an email over the weekend asking about Wheeler.
At the moment, EPA has no deputy under Pruitt. Mike Flynn, EPA's acting No. 2, retired from the agency last week.'Stop acting like a chucklehead'
Republican Sen. James Lankford, from Pruitt's home state of Oklahoma, said he didn't want the administrator to resign.
"This is one Oklahoman offering another Oklahoman a place to stay until he can find a place," Lankford said in an interview with The Oklahoman, referring to Pruitt's stay in the lobbyist-linked condo.
Pruitt received tepid support from Sen. Lindsey Graham over the weekend. Asked on ABC's "This Week" if Pruitt should go, the South Carolina Republican said the EPA administrator had done a "good job" at the agency.
"But the Congress has an oversight role here," Graham said. "And we'll see where this goes."
Referencing reports that Pruitt's landlords had trouble getting him to leave after what they initially thought would be a temporary living situation, Graham said the optics were bad.
"The one thing I can say, if you're the EPA administrator, and two lobbyists change the locks, you've got a problem," he said. "The bottom line this doesn't look good."
Graham was also dubious that the terms of Pruitt's lease reflected fair-market value. "I don't think you could get a room for $50 a night," he said.
Speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," Collins said her opposition to Pruitt's nomination was validated by the policies he has implemented during his tenure at EPA.
"This daily drip of accusations of excessive spending and ethical violations serve to further distract the agency from accomplishing its very important mission," said Collins.
She too called for congressional oversight but declined to offer an opinion on whether Pruitt should resign or be fired.
"That is a position that only the president can take at this point," she said.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) offered a similar assessment on CBS's "Face the Nation," while urging Pruitt to hold a "full-blown press conference" to respond to the accusations against him and stressing that "ethics matter."
"To the extent that you are, stop acting like a chucklehead, stop the unforced errors, stop leading with your chin," Kennedy said.
"If you don't need to fly first class, don't. Don't turn on the siren on your SUV just to watch people move over, you represent the president of the United States," he said. "All of this behavior is juvenile, it's distracting from the business that we're trying to do for the American people."Other nominees
McConnell set in motion consideration of several presidential nominees before the recess, including Claria Horn Boom to be a U.S. district court judge in Kentucky. A cloture vote on her is this evening. Others waiting in line include:Patrick Pizzella to be deputy secretary at the Department of Labor.John Broomes to sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.Rebecca Grady Jennings to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will continue weighing legal nominees during a hearing planned for Wednesday.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/09/stories/1060078455
-
Inside the EPA: 'It's Just a Slow-Motion Trainwreck'
Apr 6, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Environmental Protection Agency employees are talking about “backstabbing” and “civil war,” worrying about leaks or wondering whether to leak, pondering quitting while fearing that the mushrooming scandals surrounding Administrator Scott Pruitt will make it impossible for them to find a job.
And they’ve spent the past week facing an onslaught of media inquiries into rumors that, if true, might nudge the White House to push Pruitt out the door.
The internal EPA drama is infecting even Pruitt’s inner circle, which has been split for months between D.C.-based Republicans and some loyalists who followed him from his former post as Oklahoma attorney general — a few of whom, according to two former staffers, have been all too eager to sign off on the luxe travel and security spending that has spurred growing calls for President Donald Trump to fire their boss.
“It appears that the leadership at EPA is coming apart at the seams,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) wrote in a letter this week asking the House Oversight Committee to subpoena Pruitt’s spending records.
That’s an accurate assessment, POLITICO has learned after speaking to eight current and two former EPA staffers and an 11th former Trump appointee elsewhere in the administration. None of them were willing to be quoted by name, for fear of jeopardizing their jobs and dragging themselves into the headlines. Though the employees differ on many of the details, the picture they painted portrays an agency in chaos.
“It’s just a slow-motion trainwreck at the moment,” said one staffer who has worked with the agency since the Obama administration.
“It definitely seems like there’s some backstabbing going on,” said one political appointee, who joined the agency last year after Pruitt became administrator. The person added, “Everybody is out for themselves right now.”
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox disputed that the agency is in turmoil.
“That’s false. It’s been a team effort from the beginning, and the hardworking staff at EPA is unified and committed to advancing President Trump’s agenda of regulatory certainty and environmental stewardship,” he said in an email.
Career staffers said morale was at an all-time low. “Nobody wants to be under fire, nobody wants their agency to be under fire — they want the agency to succeed,” said yet another employee. “Some folks are absolutely having a hard time with it.”
A different EPA employee said this past week’s spree of embarrassing headlines — from Pruitt’s $50-a-day condo deal to proposals for bulletproof desks and $100,000-a-month jet rentals — has accelerated internal speculation about how long until the administrator loses his job.
“I was placing bets he’d be out by the 4th of July, but at this rate he’ll be out by the end of the month,” the staffer said. (In fact, as of Thursday, at least one website lets people bet on how long Pruitt will last.)
That decision will be up to Trump, who has praised Pruitt in public for doing a “fantastic job” even as his aides — including chief of staff John Kelly — have expressed increasing alarm at the EPA leader’s inability to stay out of trouble.
But in fact, another staffer said, employees suspect that Pruitt and his team are spending little time these days carrying out Trump’s policy agenda.
“We know the bosses, at least the administrator’s office, has zero bandwidth to be dealing with any policy issues right now,” the staffer said. “There’s no way on earth they’re going to worry about any detail of what we’re working on. ... It’s a little hard to push ahead on deregulatory actions while the guy who’s driving them seems to be going out the door.”
Among employees, that staffer added, the Pruitt scandal has come to dominate the workplace: Every hour, it seemed, someone would pop in to the room to announce the latest breaking story. Other agency veterans frequently checked news sites and social media for updates while trading stories, real or not, of senior staffers slamming doors and having yelling matches over the weekend and throughout the week.
EPA’s career employees were starting to feel fatigue over the “scandalous activities going on in D.C. by our boss,” said Mike Mikulka, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents about 900 unionized workers in EPA’s Chicago office.
Workers are especially incensed by Pruitt’s spending habits, including first-class travel and his secure phone booth, when Pruitt also pushes Congress to slash EPA’s budget and workforce. “He’s blowing money like there’s no tomorrow, spending money like it’s water, and at the same time we can’t even hire somebody to do a job that we need done,” Mikulka said.
Among Pruitt’s political employees, meanwhile, people are caught up in speculation about the source of leaks that could end careers.
Multiple sources familiar with the dynamic at EPA suggested that the agency’s leadership has been split into factions for months, recently heating up into a “civil war.”
Key EPA officials — many of whom joined the agency from Washington GOP political jobs or after working for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) — appeared frustrated with some of the inner circle of aides who followed Pruitt from his former job. Those staffers and leaders of Pruitt’s security detail have been eager to please the administrator and were less likely to push back on some of his travel and security arrangements, two former employees close to the situation said.
“It’s an environment in which people either feel that their work relies on spending time with the administrator, placating the administrator, doing his bidding or just allowing him to do whatever while [they are] focusing on the policy stuff,” said one past staffer who has continued to hear about the situation from current EPA officials.
Media-grabbing stories about Pruitt’s first-class flights, expensive security arrangements and condo rental from a lobbyist have “frustrated efforts to carry out Trump’s reform agenda, [which has been] stymied by personal conflicts of this administrator and his coterie of enablers,” the source said.
Big raises to Pruitt’s closest aides and allegations that his policy chief has been allowed to take months off of work have further irritated the situation, as have news stories that Pruitt had pushed out dissenting employees and tried to use his security detail’s sirens to speed through D.C. traffic to a trendy French restaurant.
Employees who have been drawn into signing off on Pruitt’s expenses, or who are on the front lines defending him to the news media, are frustrated — and some have considered resigning, according to the second former staffer. That person noted getting calls from one current employee looking for an exit but worried about job opportunities if the headlines get worse, and from others who were weighing whether it was time to air their own grievances via the media.
The leaks have spawned their own form of palace intrigue.
One administration source speaking to POLITICO has tried to pin the leaks on a disgruntled departed employee, while an EPA-specific trade publication alleged that some were coming from Rob Porter, a former Trump aide who was fired over reports of domestic abuse. The New York Times cited sources close to EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson who said he had considered resigning, and Sen. Tom Carper(D-Del.), in a letter to EPA’s inspector general, contended that soon-to-exit policy chief Samantha Dravis hadn’t shown up at work “for much if not all of the months of November 2017-January 2018.” EPA called that letter “baseless and absurd,“ saying Dravis “has performed her duties faithfully for her entire tenure.“
Pruitt himself has either claimed that none of his actions are questionable or pushed responsibility onto staffers below him, including for the recent raises that EPA had granted to two of his political aides over the opposition of the White House. On Thursday, he took a break from media appearances and was in Kentucky speaking about regulatory reform at a meeting of conservative state and local air agencies.
On Friday morning, the president appeared to take his side, tweeting that Pruitt “is doing a great job but is TOTALLY under siege.” But that didn’t mean Pruitt’s job is safe.
In the business community Pruitt regulates, few have publicly come to his aid, although some are backing up his policy record when asked.
“I don’t have any thoughts about the headlines,” Paul Bailey, CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said at the start of an interview Thursday. “We think Pruitt has done a really, really, really effective job policy-wise at EPA.”
A group of prominent conservatives in a letter to the White House on Friday also thanked the president for sticking with Pruitt, saying that his policy accomplishments override his controversies. Shortly later, 64 House Democrats followed Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and called for Pruitt to step down.
The scandals that have sucked up the attention of D.C. politicians and media have also started to weary the normal populace.
A woman living in a Capitol Hill apartment next to the one Pruitt rented for $50 a night, in a neighborhood swarming with reporters this week, made it a point to tell one journalist that that story is over: “He used to live here.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/04/inside-the-epa-its-just-a-slow-motion-trainwreck-467487
-
Zinke, Perry, Chao and Other Cabinet Officials Back on Hill
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
House and Senate lawmakers have scheduled a slew of budget hearings this week, calling up the likes of Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to defend the White House fiscal 2019 plan.
Perry will appear twice as anticipation swirls regarding his agency's consideration of an emergency request from embattled Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy Solutions, which has asked the Energy Department to issue an order to help save its coal and nuclear plants.
DOE could hand down a decision at any point this week — it was still considering the March 29 request as of this morning — but no matter what the agency decides, Perry will likely be pressed about it.
Cybersecurity and grid security could also be a hot topic, with a cyberattack on a natural gas provider last month recently spilling into the electricity sector (Energywire, April 6).
"Cyber and grid security are becoming increasingly intertwined in our energy systems, and recent events have only heightened this fact. I'm especially looking forward to hearing from Secretary Perry on the agency's cybersecurity and energy emergency efforts and DOE's role in coordinating energy-sector security," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy.
Also never far from the minds of lawmakers are the Trump administration's proposed cuts to certain offices in DOE, including its energy efficiency and renewable energy wing (E&E Daily, Feb. 13). Congress has ignored similar past proposals.Interior
Zinke on Wednesday will face multiple questions from House appropriators regarding a plan to cut the department's overall budget by about $2 billion.
That includes less funding for agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
Zinke also must defend the administration's recommendation to slash the popular Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as an $18 million request to jump-start an ambitious but still sketchy reorganization plan.
The White House fiscal 2019 budget prioritizes the upkeep and improvement of Interior's current portfolio rather than new land acquisition, similar to the fiscal 2018 proposal.
Appropriators will press for details on costs related to the reorganization, as well as how the department expects to fill the coffers of a proposed public lands infrastructure fund.NOAA, USDA, resources
Last month's snowstorm forced House appropriators to cancel a hearing on NOAA's budget, but they'll try again Wednesday.
Retired Adm. Timothy Gallaudet, President Trump's choice for the No. 2 position at NOAA, will defend the White House budget at a meeting of the House Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee.
Trump wants to cut NOAA by nearly 20 percent in fiscal 2019. The White House blueprint would set the agency's overall budget at $4.56 billion, a decrease of $1.08 billion from current levels.
Under the president's plan, the National Weather Service would lose 355 jobs, including 248 forecasters and others who provide support services.
The budget also would eliminate NOAA's Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and the agency's Office of Education, among others.
In its budget document, administration officials said it would allow NOAA to "sustain core functions and enable critical enhancements" while making tough decisions to cut some programs.
A House Natural Resources subcommittee will separately weigh NOAA spending, along with plans for FWS, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Power Marketing Administration.
Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue will be on the Hill as well to defend reorganization plans and cuts to conservation efforts.Transportation
Under the 2018 funding package that just passed, the Department of Transportation received $27.3 billion, an $8.7 billion increase over fiscal 2017. Republicans have sold the boost as a "down payment" on Trump's infrastructure plan.
When testifying before House and Senate appropriators this week, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao is likely to face questions about the plan and how to pay for it. In previous appearances on the Hill, Chao has hedged when asked about pay-fors.
She's also likely to face questions about proposed cuts to her department, which critics say would effectively negate the funding boosts outlined in the White House infrastructure plan.
Chao may also have to answer whether the president is still committed to a broad infrastructure overhaul following the departure of a key aide on the issue, D.J. Gribbin.Defense
House lawmakers will dig into the defense budget Thursday morning in a pair of hearings.
The House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee will look at the request for the Pentagon's environment and energy office.
Lucian Niemeyer, assistant secretary of Defense for energy, installations and environment, will testify alongside installation managers from each of the service branches.
The top line of conversation will likely be a military infrastructure budget that some see as underfunded, with the broader Pentagon budget chock-full of pricey procurement programs.
But Niemeyer is also the Pentagon's lead for energy and climate change, two topics of particular concern for Democrats worried about the Trump administration's energy policies.
Base Realignment and Closure — the military's process for closing down bases that have become obsolete — could be a hot topic, as well.
Niemeyer has been one of the administration's top advocates for doing a new round of BRAC, but the issue is politically tricky, with most members unwilling to risk shutting down a base in their district.
The House Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, will dig into the full Department of Defense budget request, as the panel gears up to write the annual defense policy bill.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/09/stories/1060078461
-
EPA Debates TSCA's Reach To Address Chemicals' Already Regulated Uses
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Leaders in EPA's toxics office are debating whether their upcoming assessments of the first 10 existing chemicals slated for review under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should address the substances' other regulated uses or whether to remove those overlapping uses from the scope of the TSCA analyses.
The debate, which appears to be occurring at high levels in the agency, addresses a fundamental question on the new law's reach and its interplay with other statutes overseen by other agency offices, an EPA source says, and the first 10 chemicals are an early example of this ongoing debate.
“It's been a question about regulatory overlap. They're in the midst of some questions about legal jurisdiction,” the source tells Inside EPA. “In a very objective sense, from what I've heard, there really is no experience working through [the new] legal statute,” so they are trying to figure it out.
The debate over which uses the first 10 chemicals must assess echoes a similar debate the agency is facing in litigation over its rules governing how to assess chemicals, which also sought to limit the number of uses the agency must assess.
Prospects that EPA may limit the scope of their upcoming reviews is drawing strong pushback from environmentalists. “Political appointees at EPA are engaged in an intra-agency process intended to dramatically narrow the scopes of those first 10 reviews,” Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund wrote in an April 3 blog.
“They are seeking to shed from those reviews any use of or exposure to a chemical that touches on another office’s jurisdiction, apparently regardless of whether or what action has been or can or will be taken by that office to identify, assess or address the relevant potential risks of that chemical.”
Denison charged that any effort to narrow the law's reach is “illegal and would make TSCA even weaker than it was before the 2016 reforms; flies in the face of the science that informs what we know about how chemicals can affect our health and that of our environment; exposes the charade that Pruitt was serious about strong TSCA implementation; and is counter to the bipartisan efforts that led to Congress overwhelmingly supporting an updated TSCA.”
The 10 existing chemicals -- those on the market prior to the original 1976 TSCA and largely unregulated under it -- slated for review are the first the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is evaluating as part of the new TSCA authorities Congress provided EPA in its 2016 reform of the statute.
The substances the outgoing Obama EPA selected to assess are generally well-understood chemicals with significant existing information about their toxicity -- important because of the tight three-year deadline Congress imposed on EPA for completing risk evaluations of high-priority chemicals.
Some of these chemicals have already been assessed and regulated under other EPA offices' authority in other statutes, such as the Clean Air Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. Because of other EPA offices' previous experiences with some of the chemicals, OPPT leaders sought help from risk assessors and managers in EPA's media offices late last year, a second EPA source tells Inside EPA.
“The approach was, rather than duplicate effort because some of these chemicals are also of concern to media offices, they solicited help from the program offices in addressing those,” the source says.
Competing Theories
The source adds the resulting discussions “were predicated on the assumptions that those exposures would be included” in the TSCA chemical evaluations and that the sharing of information between offices was requested to “minimize the workload” for OPPT by incorporating information already gathered by other EPA offices and risk analyses already conducted. “Nothing” was said about excluding these uses of the chemicals from the TSCA analyses, the source added.
But other sources suggest that reasoning has perhaps changed. The first EPA source says that there are now two competing theories of the role the new TSCA play with other statutes.
One legal theory questions “on a statute by statute basis, whether new TSCA is meant to fill around the spaces [left between other statutes, the theory] that I think people expected.”
But a competing legal theory has arisen, with its proponents “interpreting where other statutes could cover” a chemical use, or exposure pathway, or certain media, that use or pathway “wouldn't be involved at all” in the TSCA risk evaluation, the source says.
The source adds that the debate continues, with “legal minds” like EPA enforcement chief Susan Bodine involved. Bodine served as chief GOP counsel on the Senate environment committee when the law was crafted.
Bloomberg Environment reports that a policy on the jurisdiction issue is “nearing final internal review” and “is expected to be incorporated into risk analysis plans for 10 chemicals [EPA] plans to release April 20."
Bloomberg adds that the policy's “rationale presumes that people and the environment would be adequately protected from risk if exposed to a chemical that is already regulated under another statute administered by EPA.”
The second source says the theory makes some sense. For chemicals already regulated by EPA's air or water offices, those exposures are likely to present less risk than other, unregulated uses of the chemical, such as consumer or occupational exposures.
“From a science point of view, when looking at total exposure, in theory you should look at everything. But one would anticipate where exposures are already controlled, the direct exposure through use of the chemicals in products” or on the job would be the greatest exposure, the source says.
But the source cautioned that “it's case specific, and it would depend on the use and scenario.”
But EDF's Denison pushed back on that, charging that officials are taking “steps to systematically dismantle the agency’s ability to conduct broad risk reviews of chemicals and effectively address identified risks under [TSCA]."
The outgoing Obama EPA selected the first 10 chemicals shortly before its departure, meeting the first of a series of statutory deadlines in the new TSCA. The agency released planning documents describing the scope of each evaluation by the statutory deadline of June 2017, but officials at the time acknowledged that the documents had been rushed and promised to release more complete documents within six months.
EPA's top toxics appointee, Nancy Beck, told attendees at a Feb. 9 webinar that those scoping documents were underway and hopefully would be released soon -- though they have yet to be.
“We are making significant progress in this area, and we take our obligations seriously ... We are working on those now, trying to be thoughtful ... as we figure out what the final scope will be for these ten chemicals,” Beck said. “Hopefully you'll see those in the near term rather than the long term.”
The scoping documents, however, have yet to appear. The first EPA source indicates that the ongoing debate over TSCA legal theory has delayed the release of the scope documents, calling them “overdue.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-debates-tscas-reach-address-chemicals-already-regulated-uses
-
PMTs, vPvMs could be SVHCs, Germany says
Apr 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Christine Lepisto
Persistent, mobile, and toxic (PMT) and very persistent, very mobile (vPvM) substances could be designated as substances of very high concern (SVHCs), under an equivalent level of concern (REACH article 57f), according to Germany’s federal environment agency (UBA).
"We really don’t need more monitoring to start acting," Michael Neumann, scientific officer at UBA, told a two-day workshop on using REACH to manage PMT and vPvM substances, hosted by the agency and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). PM chemicals are difficult to remove from water systems and action on existing and future contamination is needed, he added.
The NGI has compiled a list of 240 REACH-registered substances that potentially fulfil the proposed PMT and vPvM criteria or are candidate substances. Although some of the chemicals are already monitored in drinking water, others are off the radar.
There is a strong correlation between substances identified by PMT/vPvM screening and those detected in drinking water or identified in scientific literature on groundwater and drinking water contaminants, said Hans-Peter Arp from NGI.
The UBA first proposed introducing PMT classification criteria for substances that may reach drinking and ground water, in May 2017, later adding a vPvM category.
Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and vPvB chemicals can be identified as SVHCs under REACH. Although PMT substances have different pathways for transport and exposure, they pose an equivalent hazard, argues the UBA.
Humans are mainly exposed to PBT/vPvB substances through the diet but PM/PMT chemicals circulate in the water cycle and can reach drinking water sources.
CLP for PM
Adding a PMT/vPvM hazard class to GHS or EU CLP would be a good first regulatory step, suggested Sylvain Bintein, policy coordinator for the European Commission’s DG Environment, who presented his personal ideas to the workshop.
This would trigger communication of risk management measures, require industry to self-classify, and promote substitution, he added. But he also presented a list of other options, including:
using PMT/vPvM properties to designate SVHCs through an equivalent level of concern;
using case-by-case provisions in item 0.10 of Annex I of REACH, which covers effects such as ozone depletion and strong odour or tainting;
emphasising drinking water in "secondary poisoning" during dossier evaluations. Secondary poisoning traditionally covers predators eating contaminated organisms such as fish and worms; and
applying the "precautionary principle".
Watze de Wolf, chair of Echa’s Member State Committee, confirmed that it is already possible to identify PMT/vPvM substances as SVHCs through an equivalent level of concern, provided there is sufficient evidence. Member states can also use the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) to collect further evidence via substance evaluation, he added.
Industry concern
Industry is not keen on the PMT/vPvM proposals, with concerns that they could lead to hazard-based regulation.
Speaking on behalf of Cefic, Ronald Bock from Chemours warned against rushing into regrettable regulation. Referring to an old UBA list of potential PMT/vPvM substances, he picked out examples that he said were based either on erroneous information or on data that are not supported by industry consensus. He also identified cases where more extensive risk assessment has been done under REACH, establishing the absence of significant risk.
The UBA said it compiled its potential list of PMT/vPvM substances based on persistence criteria matching the P in PBT and mobility screening based on the carbon-water partition coefficient (Koc).
But the toxicity criterion the agency used, was more strict than the T in PBT. It included, for example, category 2 carcinogens and mutagens, effects on or via lactation, derived no-effect levels (Dnels) and endocrine disruption.
The UBA will publish an update of proposals for PMT/vPvM criteria under REACH in May 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65740/pmts-vpvms-could-be-svhcs-germany-says
-
California, Enviro Groups Appeal Stay of Natural Gas Venting/Flaring Rule
Apr 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The State of California and a coalition of 16 environmental groups are appealing a decision by a federal judge in Wyoming to stay the implementation of parts of an Obama-era rule governing associated natural gas flaring and venting on public and tribal lands.
According to records with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, the environmental groups filed an appeal on Thursday, with California joining the appeal and paying the necessary fees on Friday.
At issue is a ruling by Judge Scott Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Skavdahl ruled the phase-in provisions of the Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule, aka the venting and flaring rule, should be placed on hold to give the Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) more time to ultimately revise or rescind the rule.
"The Trump administration wants to kill sensible methane rules for the oil and gas industry that save money and curb dangerous pollution," said attorney Michael Saul of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). The Wyoming decision “to delay the waste rule looked only at what compliance would cost the industry, not what it would save the public."
Executive Director Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), said "methane waste seriously and urgently threatens our climate, our pocketbook and public health. We will not stand by and accede to the Trump administration's efforts to rollback safeguards essential to the public interest." WELC is representing CBD and other environmental groups in the appellate case, State of Wyoming et al v. DOI et al, No. 18-8027. As of Friday afternoon, the State of New Mexico was also listed as an intervenor but was not a party in the case.
Environmental groups had prevailed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California only six weeks earlier. On Feb. 22, Judge William Orrick rejected a proposed ruleby the BLM to delay enforcement of parts of the rule until next January. Attorneys general for California and New Mexico were parties to that lawsuit.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance filed a lawsuit against the rule in Wyoming district court in November 2016. Montana and Wyoming filed a separate lawsuit, and North Dakota and Texas subsequently joined as petitioners. The two lawsuits were combined at the end of November.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113950-california-enviro-groups-appeal-stay-of-natural-gas-ventingflaring-rule
-
Pennsylvania Court Wades into Uncharted Territory, Finds Shale Wells Could Trespass
Apr 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
sssssss
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113949-pennsylvania-court-wades-into-uncharted-territory-finds-shale-wells-could-trespass
-
Advocates Seek to Resurrect Obama-Era Methane Rule
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Environmentalists challenged a federal judge's order putting an Obama-era rule on hold that addresses how oil and gas producers control natural gas emissions on federal lands.
The groups—led by the Wyoming Outdoor Council—filed a notice of appeal April 5 asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to clear the stay of the Bureau of Land Management's methane waste, or “flaring and venting” rule.
Judge Scott Skavdahl of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming April 4 said his action was designed to give the BLM time to develop a revised rule. The BLM proposed changes to the regulations in February.
Venting of natural gas releases it directly into the atmosphere, untreated. Flaring, or burning, the gas also contributes to air pollution, according to the Obama administration's rationale for the rule.
Oil and gas trade groups said Skavdahl's ruling reflects that it doesn't make sense for companies to comply with a rule that's being rewritten.
The methane waste rule was a “reasonable measure” to require oil companies to reduce the amount of gas flared, leaked, and intentionally released, Michael Saul, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the intervenor-respondents in the case, told Bloomberg Environment April 6.
“Essentially they're doing away with it,” Saul said.
‘Rollback of Safeguards’
The groups appealing the state “will not stand by and accede to the Trump Administration's efforts to rollback safeguards essential to the public interest,” Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, another intervenor-respondent, said in a statement.
In his order, Skavdahl said there was “simply nothing to be gained by litigating the merits of a rule for which a substantive revision has been proposed and is expected to be completed within a period of months.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131340730&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131340730&jd=131340730
-
Cyber Attack ‘Wake-Up Call’ Puts Pipeline Industry Under Scrutiny
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
A cyber attack that U.S. natural gas pipeline owners weren't required to report has lawmakers taking a closer look at how the industry is handling such threats, raising the prospect of tighter regulation.
In website notices to customers this week, at least seven pipeline operators from Energy Transfer Partners LP to TransCanada Corp. said their third-party electronic communications systems were shut down, with five confirming the service disruptions were caused by hacking. But the companies didn't have to alert the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, the agency that oversees the nation's more than 2.6 million miles of oil and gas conduits in addition to providing security at airports.
Though the cyber attack didn't disrupt the supply of gas to U.S. homes and businesses, it underscores that energy companies from power providers to pipeline operators and oil drillers are increasingly vulnerable to electronic sabotage. It also showed how even a minor attack can have ripple effects, forcing utilities to warn of billing delays and making it more difficult for analysts and traders to predict a key government report on gas stockpiles.
“These attacks are a wake-up call that addressing our aging energy infrastructure needs to be a priority,” Rep. Robert Latta, a Republican from Ohio who serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said in an emailed statement on April 5. “Bad actors are looking at any way to weaken the American energy sector.”
This isn't the first time hackers have had oil and gas pipes in their sights: The Congressional Research Service reported intrusions targeting pipeline communication systems back in 2012. A web attack could “disrupt pipeline service and cause spills, explosions, or fires—all from remote locations,” the service said in a report.
The electronic systems that were targeted in the recent cyberattack help pipeline customers communicate their needs with operators via a computer-to-computer exchange of documents, such as contracts and invoices. The attacks didn't affect operational control of the pipelines.
Even before the most recent pipeline web attack, there were signs that the government was intensifying its focus on web-based energy threats. Last month, the TSA issued a 27-page report on pipeline security that included a section on cybersecurity. In the report, the agency urged pipelines to take measures including establishing a cybersecurity plan, limiting network access and changing default passwords.
But the TSA doesn't require operators to report web intrusions, and it's not clear whether the agency would have jurisdiction over an attack on a third-party communications provider. TSA requests voluntary notifications of “security incidents that are indicative of a deliberate attempt to disrupt pipeline operations or activities that could be considered precursors to such an attempt,” according to the report last month.
“TSA will continue to work with the pipeline industry to assess any vulnerabilities associated with this incident,” Lisa Farbstein, a spokeswoman for the agency, said in an email April 6. “TSA, in consultation with cyber experts, will make recommendations, as appropriate, to the pipeline industry to mitigate concerns.”
The American Gas Association, an industry group that represents more than 200 gas supply companies, supports voluntary reporting of cyberattacks, Dave McCurdy, the association's president, said. Mandatory reporting could be counterproductive because it may set the bar too low and create a false sense of security, especially in an environment where cyber threats evolve quickly, McCurdy said by phone April 6.
“Just asking for reporting and requirements is not the answer,” he said. “We need to understand the nature of attacks. Every industry in a critical area receives attacks mostly daily.”
$96 Million
In February, Energy Secretary Rick Perry announced the department would use $96 million to create an office to address cyber threats to energy. Though Homeland Security, which oversees TSA, has the legal authority to oversee energy cybersecurity, “DOE works closely with the sector on cyber security and threat information sharing,” Shaylyn Hynes, a spokeswoman for the department, said in a statement.
But some lawmakers say it's not enough.
At a congressional hearing in March, Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington, told Perry that budget cuts could make it more difficult to shield the energy sector from cyber intrusions.
“Our energy infrastructure is under attack,”’ Cantwell said. “A year ago, I called for a comprehensive assessment of cyber attacks to our grid by Russians. We don't need rhetoric at this point—we need action.”
The threat appears to be widespread. Two years ago, the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., said its firewall system blocks 25,000 cyberattacks a day.
Though the energy industry and regulators are looking more closely at cybersecurity risks, the shift may not be happening fast enough, said Edgard Capdevielle, chief executive officer of Nozomi Networks Inc. in San Francisco, a company that provides cybersecurity applications for customers including power producers and oil and gas pipeline operators.
The industry's perception is that addressing energy cyber threats “is important, but manana is OK,” said Capdevielle. “Manana is not OK.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131340732&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131340732&jd=131340732
-
Union Vote Planned for Safety Agency Trump Sought to Close
Apr 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Workers at a 40-person agency that investigates industrial accidents will vote whether to join the American Federation of Government Employees next week after staff discord and closure threats.
A majority of U.S. Chemical Safety Board employees have signed union interest cards, and the American Federation of Government Employees and agency management agreed to hold an election beginning April 9, Peter Winch, a special assistant for AFGE District 14 in Washington told Bloomberg Environment April 5.
If a majority of eligible employees approve, the union would be the first at the safety board since it became operational in 1998. Staff will vote exclusively by mail because the agency is dispersed among work sites in Washington, Denver, and other places, Winch said.
A spokeswoman for the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor negotiations at federal agencies, also confirmed April 5 the election is taking place. A spokeswoman for the Chemical Safety Board didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Like the National Transportation Safety Board, the Chemical Safety Board issues nonbinding recommendations to companies, trade organizations, and other federal, state, and local agencies after an industrial accident. It does not issue regulations or fines.
The American Federation of Government Employees intends to organize the 20 or so employees eligible for membership with its Local 2211 Chapter, which represents about 700 employees at the National Transportation Safety Board, International Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and Export-Import Bank of the U.S., Winch said.
Staff Concerns
The Chemical Safety Board was created under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, but lawmakers did not fund it until 1998.
The recent uncertainty around the CSB, and actions by agency management, caused friction among employees and spurred calls to join the union, Winch said.
Among the staff's concerns are fears management could trim policies allowing for flexible work arrangements such as teleworking and the possibility that some investigators could be required to reapply for their positions. The Trump administration's threat to close the Chemical Safety Board also is causing strain, Winch said.
CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland said last year that an Office of Personnel Management evaluation of the agency's hiring practices, started before her confirmation, prompted action on employee job classifications.
A subsequent third-party audit Sutherland commissioned found four employees working as “attorney-investigators” may have been hired improperly. To resolve the problem, the employees may have to reapply for similar positions that comply with federal hiring rules.
The proposal is concerning to AFGE and the workers, who hope to persuade management to reconsider, Winch said.
The Trump administration proposed to close the Chemical Safety Board in its budget requests for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, calling it “duplicative.” The administration has yet to nominate anyone to fill a vacant board seat.
“The agency, as a whole, seems a little bit adrift,” Winch said, “and it's affecting employee morale.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131340739&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131340739&jd=131340739
-
EPA Cites Dozens Of Past Rule Delays To Justify Postponing RMP Update
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is touting a list of more than two dozen federal rules from 1983 to 2013 in which agencies have delayed existing regulations while weighing revisions to those policies, in response to an appellate court order to provide the list in a suit testing EPA's delay of an Obama-era facility safety rule while the agency reconsiders the regulation.
In an April 6 response to an order of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys list 21 past EPA and other agency rules that were delayed to allow time for revision. The list includes a dozen rules authorized under the Clean Air Act, which provides authority for the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program.
“EPA believes that the attached list of 30 responsive actions represents as comprehensive a list as practicable within the timeframe provided,” DOJ attorneys say in a filing accompanying the list. The list of delayed rules spans 30 years, from 1983 to 2013, and includes regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Past delays have targeted compliance dates for rules issued under EPA's new source review program and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure program, among others.
The list responds to a March 23 order from the D.C. Circuit in the case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, where environmental and labor groups, and some Democratic-led states, are challenging the Trump administration's nearly 20-month delay of EPA's January 2017 final rule updating the agency's RMP program with new requirements to strengthen the program.
The court ordered federal officials to provide a list of delayed rules after DOJ attorneys at March 16 oral argument contended that EPA has broad authority to postpone effective dates after notice and comment, and that federal agencies have exercised that authority in the past.
The RMP update rule imposes new requirements for facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and also bolsters requirements for coordinating and sharing data with first responders and the public.
RMP Update
EPA crafted the revised rule in response to former President Barack Obama's August 2013 executive order on improving facility safety, issued after a fertilizer facility in West, TX, exploded in April of that year -- killing 15 people, including first responders.
However, the Trump EPA postponed the date when those new mandates would take effect, from 2017 until 2019, after accepting an industry reconsideration petition.
While environmentalists have argued that the Clean Air Act limits rule delays for purposes of revision to three months, the recently-filed list includes a March 2010 18-month stay of fugitive emissions requirements in the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, which occurred after that rule had been delayed three months.
In the filing, DOJ attorneys say they compiled the list through searches of the Federal Register and consultation with regulatory officials at EPA and other agencies. Industry intervenors in the case also provided input, the filing says.
Attorneys also note that federal agencies also delay rules without notice and comment and argue that the practice is common during presidential transitions.
A final ruling in the delay suit could clarify EPA's authority to delay Clean Air Act rules and could significantly bolster the Trump Administration's deregulatory agenda -- or cast doubt on a host of other delays if the panel decides that reconsideration alone is not enough to justify postponing enforcement.
At or oral argument, the three-judge panel seemed to agree that EPA has general statutory authority to amend the compliance dates of past rules. But they questioned whether the Trump administration had justified extending all targets for the policy until 2019 or later.
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.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-cites-dozens-past-rule-delays-justify-postponing-rmp-update
-
Pruitt Said to Differ From White House, Wehrum On Vehicle GHG Approach
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A key White House official, the auto sector and EPA's own air chief are said to differ from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Transportation Department on how far to roll back light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and efficiency rules, amid uncertainty about whether Trump officials can avert a legal and political war on the issue with California.
The concerns come as EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have yet to propose specific, joint changes to the GHG and fuel economy regulations -- even though EPA formally unveiled April 2 its determination that the Obama-era limits for model years 2022-2025 are “not appropriate” under the Clean Air Act.
But Pruitt's statements dismissing efforts to achieve program certainty after MY25 -- while also teeing up “reevaluation” of California's special air law waiver authority to enforce tougher standards -- are exacerbating concerns that a deal is not ultimately possible.
“Did EPA [air chief] Bill Wehrum want a more moderate proposal than his boss did? I think [yes],” says one industry source tracking the situation.
Is White House adviser Mike Catanzaro “aligned with Wehrum? I think [so],” the source adds, citing Trump's top domestic energy staffer, who is in charge of coordinating activity between EPA, NHTSA and California on the issue.
“But when you have Pruitt saying California is not going to be the arbiter [of national standards] and [rules for] 2026-2030 are off the table, you don't have a lot of room to operate,” the source says, referring to Pruitt's statements before and during the EPA's formal unveiling of its determination to weaken the GHG standards.
The source says both Catanzaro and Wehrum appear to maintain hopes that a deal can be reached with California, averting a large-scale political and legal battle that automakers are keen to avoid.
The Golden State has vowed to retain its standards, joined by a dozen other states, which would force automakers to supply different products for two large swaths of the country -- a situation industry is also hoping to avoid.
Nevertheless, California has suggested it would entertain more flexibility in exchange for committing to issue post-MY25 rules.
A knowledgeable source says divergent views within the Trump administration are not just due to Pruitt but also because NHTSA is taking a “very hard line” in resisting a stringent vehicle program.
Pruitt is “ideologically aligned” with that view, but Catanzaro “does not want a war” with California, the source says. And Wehrum “respects the Clean Air Act and process and agency staff” -- who are likely to regard a wholesale rollback as technically unsupported.
Publicly, Wehrum in the recent past has kept options open on the agency's posture with California, noting in Jan. 25 remarks to the Washington Auto Show he has “no interest whatsoever” in seeking to revoke California's waiver authority to regulate passenger vehicle GHGs, but not entirely ruling it out.
“But I also want a national program,” Wehrum said.
And in a January interview with Inside EPA, Wehrum left the door open to divergent EPA and California standards that could require different vehicles in different states. "We can live in a world, you know, a two-car world, but that's not ideal."
Evidence that Pruitt and other administration officials do not necessarily see eye to eye on the vehicle standards comes with the New York Times is reporting Trump administration officials and California are “expected to reopen talks” on the regulations.
While there have been some previous meetings, observers to date have said they did not appear to be yielding significant results. For example, a recent meeting between Wehrum and California officials was apparently geared more toward briefing them on EPA's April 2 decision.
And another knowledgeable source says the meetings appear to have yielded little progress to date at least in part because of a lack of specific options available for the administration to put on the table.
The Times article likewise describes White House officials as “pushing the EPA toward a compromise with California,” and cites automaker concerns that EPA's response has been “overzealous” and played into the idea that the forthcoming rewrite of the standards is a “rollback.”
In addition, the story cites a “proposal” that would retain the Obama-era fuel economy standards but give automakers more flexibility to meet those requirements, in exchange for an administration commitment “honoring California's authority to set stricter standards though 2030.”
That idea appears to broadly echo what observers have already suggested would be the prerequisite for any “deal” between the White House and California -- that the administration would be open to further emissions controls after 2025 in exchange for nearer-term flexibility. At the same time, observers have already also noted that California could postpone for several years getting administration approval on specific post-2025 controls.
Pruitt's 'Power Base'
A third knowledgeable source agrees that Catanzaro appears to be in the camp of seeking out a compromise, and calls Wehrum “pragmatic.”
This source, however, says it is not clear that conciliatory attitudes will prevail within the White House. The source also notes that Pruitt likely has more say in the final decision and adds his conservative “power base” is not to be underestimated despite the current swirl of damaging headlines over Pruitt's ethics troubles.
Pruitt has been publicly attacking California and saying it should not “dictate” standards for the rest of the country.
EPA's determination itself sidestepped the issue of when -- and whether -- the agency will target its current Clean Air Act waiver -- a demand from an array of conservative groups. Even so, EPA's press office issued a statement saying the waiver is “being reexamined.”
Talk that some automakers are worried Trump officials might be overreaching is prompting skepticism from some environmental advocates.
Safe Climate Campaign's Daniel Becker and James Gerstenzang authored an April 6 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times citing public industry praise for EPA's roll out of its determination, as well as the industry's original push for the administration to reopen the standards.
“Never mind that their lobbyists stood beside Pruitt [during the announcement]. And privately, their chief executives pitched the cuts to Trump in the White House days after he took office,” the article says.
But others say automakers are legitimately concerned that the process for reopening the standards has become overly polarized, with sources citing interest in a plan being discussed by Global Automakers and others that would make the program more flexible but perhaps preserve top-line emissions goals.
Another source says some close to the debate on the vehicle GHG limits want to “diffuse tensions,” but the source expresses concerns that political incentives both in Washington, D.C., and California threaten to upend any such efforts in favor of confrontation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-said-differ-white-house-wehrum-vehicle-ghg-approach
-
Ethanol backers seek to block suit over EPA's delayed RFS study
Apr 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
A group that supports EPA's renewable fuels standard (RFS) is seeking to block a Sierra Club suit that aims to force the agency to issue a congressionally mandated study on the environmental and air quality impacts of the standard, charging the group lacks standing to bring such a case.
If successful, the effort led by the Urban Air Initiative (UAI), a group led by former Bush I White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, would have the effect of killing pending settlement talks in Sierra Club v. EPA, just as the parties are seeking additional time to continue their settlement discussions for another 45 days.*
The case has previously gained attention because EPA is asking the court to put it in abeyance to discuss a settlement -- even as Administrator Scott Pruitt has barred the agency from entering into such agreements as part of his effort to end the so-called “sue-and-settle” practice.
In an April 5 amicus brief, UAI said it took no position on the merits of Sierra Club's complaint and even agrees that EPA should issue the reports the suit seeks to require because it believes their use of best available science would show “that higher levels of ethanol blending in gasoline would reduce harmful air pollution.”
But UAI argued that Sierra Club lacks standing to sue because its members are not suffering harm from use of ethanol and the court could not redress any alleged harm.
“Sierra Club lacks standing because its member’s asserted injury is not caused by 'high ethanol content fuel' and because that injury would not be redressed by an anti-backsliding study or by any regulations that follow,” the group's brief says.
In the suit, Sierra Club alleges that EPA failed to conduct statutorily required environmental impact and air quality reviews for the RFS, which seeks to lower greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on oil by expanding renewable fuels.
The case may also be a test for Pruitt's Oct. 16 directive, which laid out a series of steps that had to be taken before EPA could agree to any kind of settlements -- steps that industry sources warned were prohibitive and would “paralyze” EPA, including broad consultative requirements.
This suit was seen as an early test of the sue-and-settle directive, but the parties sought to stay the case to consider a settlement, raising the prospect that EPA was quietly stepping back from the policy just five months after its adoption amidst a series of court losses.
But while the case and the settlement talks are over required studies done to evaluate the impacts of the RFS, the amicus brief says that Sierra Club has not demonstrated standing based on its respiratory injury claim, because UAI argues that high-ethanol content fuel reduces risks to respiratory health and does not increase ozone, so the respiratory injuries alleged in the case “cannot be plausibly caused by the fuel.”
The brief adds that UAI is a “social welfare organization dedicated to educating the public about the health threats posed by current formulations of gasoline, and to taking positive steps to reduce the threat to public health by encouraging a change in the formulation of such fuels.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ethanol-backers-seek-block-suit-over-epas-delayed-rfs-study
-
Hearing to Highlight States' Views of EPA
Apr 9, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
It's complicated.
Cliched though it may be, the phrase sums up the spectrum of relationships between state air quality regulators and U.S. EPA that will be the subject of a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing tomorrow.
While states depend on the federal agency to set nationwide standards (and cover a large chunk of their budgets), they also frequently chafe at how EPA officials interpret their responsibilities.
Under the Obama administration, Republican-leaning states regularly sued to block what they deemed onerous or overreaching regulations. With President Trump in office, it's now Democratic-led states that are turning to the courts to block regulatory rollbacks that they say will hurt public health and the environment.
Only last week, Arkansas and EPA touted their teamwork in dismantling an Obama-era plan to cut haze-forming emissions from coal-fired power plants (Greenwire, April 6).
Around the same time, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) promised a lawsuit if the Trump administration attempts to revoke the state's waiver to set its own, more stringent vehicle fuel economy standards (E&E News PM, April 3).
Tomorrow's hearing, titled "Cooperative Federalism Under the Clean Air Act: State Perspectives," will offer the full gamut of viewpoints. California's top environmental regulator will be there; so will a member of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which played an influential role in challenging Obama-era regulations.
In a statement, EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said the hearing will allow state regulators "to highlight the Trump EPA's efforts to address the backlog in state implementation plans, ensure that states are not shut out of decisions that concern them, and spotlight controversial rules that went beyond the agency's authority."
A spokeswoman for ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) did not reply to an email asking whether there are any particular issues or concerns he intends to raise. But the head of Delaware's environmental agency will be at the witness table and could have plenty to say.
The state, for example, is among those now suing EPA after the federal agency balked at expanding a regional ozone reduction program (Greenwire, Jan. 2).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/09/stories/1060078453
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested