ACC PM 4/25/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Seeks to Cook the Books on EPA Risk Assessment Science

   Apr 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Richard Denison
   
   
   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unveiled his “secret science” initiativeyesterday at a press conference to which no press were invited.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Critics: Legal Ambush Awaits Pruitt's 'Secret Science' Rule

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Sean Reilly
   
   
   In signing off on a proposed scientific "transparency" rule yesterday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt heralded a straightforward goal: to ensure that the data underlying major new regulations are available to the American people.
3. How Scott Pruitt Plans to Defend Himself on Capitol Hill: Spread the Blame

   Apr 25, 2018 | The New York Times

   By Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport
   
   
   As Scott Pruitt, the embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency, prepares to testify before Congress on Thursday amid a series of spending and ethics investigations, an internal E.P.A. document indicates that he may blame his staff for many of the decisions that have put a cloud over his tenure at the agency.
4. Ewire: White House Takes a Tougher Line with Pruitt Ahead of Hearing

   Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

   Tensions between EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump White House over Pruitt's alleged ethics scandals appear to be heightening just one day before Pruitt is slated to appear before two House committees -- his first congressional appearances since the ethics and other scandals broke.
5. Scientists Say They Want Open Data — but Not Pruitt's Plan

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Scott Waldman
   
   
   Scientists are worried that EPA's new plan to increase transparency will undermine it instead.

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

Chemical Management News

6. FDA Details Its New Push on Heavy Metals in Food

   Apr 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Tom Neltner
   
   
   In May 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN) announced it had “established a Toxic Elements Working Group whose mission in part is to develop a strategy for prioritizing and modernizing the Center’s activities with respect to food/toxic element combinations using a risk-based approach.”
7. Canada Clears 59 Inorganic, Organometallic Substances from Further Assessment

   Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Julie Miller
   
   
   The Canadian government has listed 59 inorganic and organometallic substances it considers have been addressed in other assessment activities and will, therefore, not undergo further evaluation at this time under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).

Energy News

8. Justices Uphold Patent Review Process in Oil Field Tech Fight

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

   By Ellen M. Gilmer
   
   
   The Supreme Court yesterday rejected an oil and gas company's bid to upend the way U.S. officials review patents.
9. Climate Change Looms Large as FERC Reviews Pipeline Policy

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Sam Mintz and Ellen M. Gilmer
   
   
   The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's comprehensive review of natural gas policy will likely open a new chapter in a long debate over how the agency weighs the environmental impacts of pipeline projects.
10. Gray Oak Pipeline, Corpus Terminal to Move More Permian Crude to Texas Coast

    Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis
    
    
    Two big Permian Basin crude oil takeaway solutions were launched on Tuesday, with a pipeline in the works to carry up to 1 million b/d from West Texas to the Gulf Coast, and a companion terminal.
11. Cheniere, PHMSA Reach Agreement on Sabine Pass LNG Tank Leaks

    Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Charlie Passut
    
    
    Cheniere Energy Inc. has been given authority by federal regulators under a modified timetable to determine what caused the leaks discovered earlier this year at two liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks at its Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana.

Chemical Security News

12. U.S. Helps Build a Cyber Bulwark for the Black Sea Grid

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    In December 2015, hackers seized control over part of Ukraine's power grid, cutting off the lights for nearly a quarter-million people in an unprecedented cyberattack.
13. Senate Prods DHS on Ability to Ward off Cyberthreats

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak
    
    
    Russian hackers recently broke into U.S. critical infrastructure networks but were blocked before they could wreak havoc, a top Department of Homeland Security official told Congress yesterday.

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

Environment News

14. The Northeast US Has a Carbon-Trading System. It Is Boosting, Not Hurting, State Economies.

    Apr 25, 2018 | Vox

    By David Roberts
    
    
    When climate hawks fantasize about climate policy, they tend to imagine a sweeping, economy-wide carbon tax, set at a high and rising rate. But as a political strategy, this hasn’t much worked; political restraints have meant that no such tax has emerged in the real world.
15. Pompeo Unlikely to Alter U.S. Climate Policy

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo might be skeptical of climate science, but history suggests that he might not go out of his way to dismantle environmental regulations.
16. Macron: The US Will Come Back to the Paris Climate Pact

    Apr 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama
    
    
    French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday predicted that the United States will come back to the Paris climate change agreement.
17. Macron Gently Pressures Trump on Paris Accord

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick
    
    
    French President Emmanuel Macron walked a tightrope yesterday by touting his country's enduring relationship with the United States while also breaking with President Trump on climate change.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Scott Pruitt Seeks to Cook the Books on EPA Risk Assessment Science

   Apr 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Richard Denison

   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unveiled his “secret science” initiativeyesterday at a press conference to which no press were invited.  While EPA has yet to post the proposed rule or otherwise make it available to the public, it was made available by others.  The main thrust of the proposal is actually considerably different and, at least initially, more targeted, than advertised by Pruitt in recent weeks and by the House of Representatives Science Committee’s Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), who authored the secret science legislation on which Pruitt’s proposal was to be based and appeared with Pruitt yesterday.

   Yesterday both men stuck to their earlier talking points about the need to make sure all information EPA relies on is reproducible and fully publicly available, and never mentioned the change in the focus of the proposal.  I suspect both of them would have been hard pressed to describe the actual main focus of the proposal, which is now this:

   When promulgating significant regulatory actions, the Agency shall ensure that dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.  (p. 23, emphases in original)

   But I am sure Dr. Nancy Beck, chemical industry toxicologist turned top political appointee in EPA’s toxics office, could in a heartbeat.

   I would describe the new approach, while no less dangerous, as a laser-guided missile in comparison to the carpet-bombing approach taken by the House legislation and earlier iterations of the EPA proposal.  

   Why the change of strategy? 

   A major clue surfaced last week in emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists that it had received in response to a FOIA request to the agency.  That request was for “copies of all communications, from January 1, 2018 to present [March 6, 2018], between Richard Yamada and Nancy Beck.”  Mr. Yamada is Dr. Beck’s counterpart in EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD).  He came to ORD directly from working for Chairman Smith at the House Science Committee.

   It should be noted that, after the FOIA’d emails drew significant attention in the media, EPA withdrew them saying they should not have been released; UCS promptly made them available.

   One of the Beck-Yamada email exchanges shows Dr. Beck raising a red flag that an earlier version of the proposal that mirrored the House legislation would pose enormous burdens on industry, by either forcing companies to make public all of the data in their unpublished studies at great expense or forcing EPA not to rely on those industry studies.  Said Dr. Beck:  “The directive needs to be revised.  Without change it will jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/ re-registration review process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations.”  (No mention by Dr. Beck that the directive would have posed the same burden/quandary on EPA in seeking to use published as well as unpublished studies to inform its work, to the detriment of public health protection.)

   The proposal was indeed revised.  So what is the new one up to?

   The new focus is a requirement that EPA make public information “sufficient for independent validation” of “dose response data and models” as a condition for EPA to rely on such data and models.  I describe this as a laser-guided missile because it goes right to the heart of the war industry has been waging against the risk assessment science used by EPA and called for by the nation’s most prestigious scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

   Part of what’s at stake here was signaled in the statement made by one of the proposed rule’s endorsers featured in EPA’s press release:  “The proposal represents a major scientific step forward by recognizing the widespread occurrence of non-linear dose responsesin toxicology and epidemiology for chemicals and radiation and the need to incorporate such data in the risk assessment process.”  (emphasis added)

   To understand what this statement is getting at, there are three scientific issues that I need to briefly introduce here.

   Risk assessment science has increasingly moved away from assuming chemicals have safe thresholds, has moved toward considering low-dose effects, and relies on defaults to account for uncertainty.  NAS embraced these concepts and called on EPA to adopt them in its seminal 2009 report, Science and Decisions.  Let me briefly discuss each of them.

   First, for decades the chemical industry and its army of consultants have argued that virtually every substance, no matter how toxic, has a “safe threshold” – a level of exposure below which there is no risk whatsoever.  The science has steadily challenged this assumption, based on strong evidence that even if such a threshold appears to exist in, say, a test conducted in laboratory animals, when extrapolated to a diverse human population the notion that a threshold actually exists rapidly falls apart.  That is because the human population exhibits enormous variation in genetics, health status, life stage, background and co-exposures, etc. – such that a “safe” level of exposure in an affluent, healthy adult may well not be safe at all for, say, a developing fetus or an adult living in a poor community.

   Second, as the sophistication of scientific methods and our understanding of biology have grown, the science is also increasingly pointing to evidence of real effects of many substances at low doses, once thought to be safe.  Lead and small particulates in air pollution are two examples of substances where science has not identified a “safe” level of exposure.

   At the risk of resorting to too much jargon, how this plays out in risk assessment is whether one assumes a linear or non-linear association between low levels of exposure to a substance (dose) and the effect that exposure has on health (response).  A linear dose-response relationship means that some level of response within the population is expected for all doses all the way down to zero.  In contrast, an assumption of non-linear dose response at low levels would mean there is a safe threshold – a finite dose at which the risk would be zero.

   A third, related issue arises from the fact that we don’t intentionally test toxic substances on people, but rather extrapolate from studies done on other animals or even on cultured cells or cell components.  To ensure protection of people requires the use of what are called “defaults.”  For example, when extrapolating from a study done in laboratory rodents, risk assessors typically apply a factor of up to 10 to account for the potential that a substance is much more toxic to people than to rodents.  A similar factor is often applied to account for variability in susceptibility within the human population, to account for the potential that, say, an infant is more susceptible to the effects of a chemical than is an adult.  EPA’s proposal makes several references to “default assumptions,” although their meaning is not entirely clear.

   In her time at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Dr. Beck led the charge for ACC and the chemical industry on these very issues.  Now as the top Trump official in the toxics program at EPA, she appears to be heralding a return to old, industry-friendly “science,” to the detriment of public health.

   So it’s no accident that the new proposal seeks to compel EPA to subject its dose response data and models to independent – read “industry” – validation.

   Won’t the proposal also subject the industry’s own data and models to independent validation?

   In principle, EPA’s proposal would require that the industry’s data and models relating to dose response would also need to be made public in order for EPA to rely on them in regulatory decisions.

   Count me skeptical, for at least three reasons.

   First, the proposal gives EPA unfettered discretion to define what constitutes “pivotal regulatory science,” which it could use selectively to require disclosure where it wishes and not do so where it doesn’t.

   Second, the proposal gives EPA unfettered discretion to exempt anything it wants from the full-disclosure requirements (p. 14):

   The proposed rule includes a provision allowing the Administrator to exempt significant regulatory decisions on a case-by-case basis if he or she determines that compliance is impracticable because it is not feasible to ensure that all dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science are publicly available in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy and confidentiality, and is sensitive to national and homeland security, or in instances where OMB's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review provides for an exemption (Section IX).

   Third, in part to blunt earlier criticism that this proposal could force the disclosure of private information, whether medical records or confidential business information, EPA now proposes (pp. 9-10):

   Nothing in the proposed rule compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections.

   Interestingly – especially coupled with the broad authority EPA grants itself to issue exemptions – this statement does not say whether EPA will or won’t  base a significant regulatory action on non-disclosed data and models, only that nothing compels it to make such disclosure.  EPA may use this ambiguity to selectively consider or ignore non-disclosed data and models to reach industry-preferred outcomes.

   In theory, there is one piece of good news in EPA’s proposal: it is a proposal and will be subject to public comment, in contrast to Pruitt’s earlier plan to issue this as an immediately effective directive.  On the flip side, though, it will be harder for a new administration to undo a rule.  Read/listen to what Pruitt himself said yesterday at the announcement (minute 53:21):

   This regulation that we’re proposing today, and that’s something that I want to emphasize, this is not a policy, this is not a memo, this is a proposed rule. And the reason that’s important is because this is not just something that we’re proposing that may last for two months or two years, it is a codification of an approach that says that as we do our business at the agency, the science that we use is going to be transparent, it’s gonna to be reproducible, it’s gonna be able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace and those that watch what we do can make informed decisions about whether we’ve drawn the proper conclusions or not.

   It will be critical that advocates for strong science and public and environmental health protections loudly let EPA know that its efforts to allow industry interests to manipulate agency risk assessment science is outrageous and unacceptable.

   http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/25/scott-pruitt-seeks-to-cook-the-books-on-epa-risk-assessment-science/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Critics: Legal Ambush Awaits Pruitt's 'Secret Science' Rule

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Sean Reilly

   In signing off on a proposed scientific "transparency" rule yesterday, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt heralded a straightforward goal: to ensure that the data underlying major new regulations are available to the American people.

   But the draft rule raises significant questions about how EPA will accomplish that goal, with critics predicting the proposal won't withstand a court challenge if made final in its current form.

   For example, the proposal's stated purpose is to guarantee all data and models undergirding studies pivotal to significant new regulations are independently verifiable and "available to the public." But it would allow EPA to bypass that requirement for major rulemakings when its administrator decides on a case-by-case basis it's "impracticable" to do so. Other exemptions could apply to confidential business information and personally identifiable information.

   While those waivers could be read as an attempt to address objections surrounding similar legislation, John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview, "Congress can do things agencies can't. Congress gave EPA no statutory authority for this proposed rulemaking."

   To Pruitt's allies, the proposed rule is a long overdue step toward shedding more light on the evidence behind new regulations.

   "If you want to regulate, that's fine, but you have to regulate sort of on an honest basis," said Steve Milloy, a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute, which in the past has unsuccessfully sued EPA over various aspects of research review practices.

   Walke and other detractors instead view the proposal as a subterfuge to keep EPA from tapping research that would justify the need for added regulations to protect public health.

   Concerns on a different front have also been voiced within EPA.

   In January, Nancy Beck, head of the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, warned the directive would "jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration process" and possibly all risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, according to an email recently obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists under an open records request.

   Beck, who previously worked for the American Chemistry Council, didn't immediately reply to phone and email messages this morning asking whether the draft signed by Pruitt addressed her objections.

   In an email, Jonathan Corley, a spokesman for the trade group, commended Pruitt and EPA staff for their work thus far, adding that the chemical industry is committed to working with the agency "to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency's regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights."

   The broader issue isn't new.

   In a 2002 ruling on an American Trucking Associations challenge to air pollution standards, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with EPA that obtaining and publicizing all the relevant data underlying the standards "would be impractical and unnecessary."

   In this case, Walke said EPA is trying to "excise" consideration of health research that could be used to justify new pollution safeguards while allowing access to nonreplicable economic models and studies that industry submits.

   From a legal standpoint, he said, that contradictory approach is "the very definition of an arbitrary agency action."

   In unveiling the proposal, Pruitt labeled it the final piece of a three-legged stool, the other two being his directive to end "sue-and-settle" practices and a separate order baring recipients of EPA grants from serving on agency advisory committees.

   Among other provisions, the science proposal would also require EPA to conduct "independent peer review" of "pivotal regulatory science" use in justifying major new regulations without spelling out how such reviewers will be chosen. EPA is also seeking public feedback on which part of the agency should implement the proposed rule.

   Among those offering support for the proposal is Tony Cox, a Colorado consultant whom Pruitt recently named to chair the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which provides outside expertise to EPA on regularly required reviews of air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other common pollutants.

   EPA is currently in the early stages of a review of thresholds for particulate matter that environmental groups fear could be jeopardized by the proposed rule. But in an EPA press release, Cox said that "independent reproducibility of analyses and conclusions are bedrock principles of sound science" and that the U.S. Census is already using techniques to address privacy concerns.

   "Thus, we can have the scientific benefits of accessible data while protecting individual privacy," Cox said.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080091
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. How Scott Pruitt Plans to Defend Himself on Capitol Hill: Spread the Blame

   Apr 25, 2018 | The New York Times

   By Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport

   As Scott Pruitt, the embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency, prepares to testify before Congress on Thursday amid a series of spending and ethics investigations, an internal E.P.A. document indicates that he may blame his staff for many of the decisions that have put a cloud over his tenure at the agency.

   The document, known internally as the “hot topics” list, appears to lay out talking points for Mr. Pruitt’s two appearances before the House of Representatives. It suggests that Mr. Pruitt is prepared to say that he now flies coach when traveling; that others were responsible for giving two close aides who used to work for him in Oklahoma substantial pay raises; and that E.P.A. officials who were reassigned or demoted after challenging his spending all had performance issues.

   The document, which The New York Times has reviewed and the veracity of which the E.P.A. did not dispute, appeared to be a work in progress. Mr. Pruitt’s responses may change on Thursday when he appears before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in the morning, and a House Appropriations Committee panel in the afternoon.

   His dual appearances coincide with rising calls from both Democrats and Republicans for Mr. Pruitt to step aside. He has been criticized for spending more than $3 million on security in his first year in office, a figure that includes salary and overtime for his security detail of more than 20 people, some of whom have been dispatched to protect Mr. Pruitt on private trips to Disneyland, professional basketball games and the 2018 Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.

   Republicans in both chambers of Congress are increasingly raising concerns about Mr. Pruitt. “They’re not good reports,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate. “He has to answer those questions. There’s a lot of stuff out there that is certainly not helpful to his or the administration’s cause.”

   Jahan Wilcox, a spokesman for the E.P.A., said in a statement that Mr. Pruitt was looking forward to discussing the agency’s efforts with lawmakers.

   “Congressional Hearings are an opportunity to reiterate the accomplishments of President Trump’s E.P.A., which include: working to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States, providing regulatory certainty, and declaring a war on lead, all while returning to Reagan-era staffing levels,” Mr. Wilcox said.

   Mr. Pruitt, in his prepared opening statement, which the House Energy and Commerce Committee made public Wednesday morning, makes no mention of the ethics issues that have dogged him recently.

   Several Democrats said that they planned to ask Mr. Pruitt about environmental policy and climate change as well as ethics questions and detailed allegations of unchecked spending.

   “On the ethics, the thing I worry about most is this concerted effort to basically fire everyone who questioned him,” said Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the leading Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “The biggest concern I have, which runs across the whole spectrum, is science. He wants to put science under the rug, make decisions that are not scientifically based. Get rid of anyone who is scientifically oriented.”

   Under Mr. Pruitt’s leadership, the E.P.A. has begun to systematically dismantle former President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Mr. Pruitt’s zeal to roll back climate change regulations and impose new rules that benefit fossil fuel industries has endeared him to President Trump. The president also is said to enjoy his E.P.A. chief’s company.

   But the spending controversies have proven to be a major distraction. Mr. Pruitt currently faces 10 investigations by the E.P.A.’s inspector general’s office, the congressional watchdog Government Accountability Office, and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, among others. One White House official said support for Mr. Pruitt inside the White House was waning. On Monday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the president’s press secretary, offered a guarded defense of Mr. Pruitt, praising his deregulation efforts but adding, “The other things certainly are something that we’re monitoring and looking at, and I’ll keep you posted.”

   Against that backdrop, the “hot topics” document offers a window into how Mr. Pruitt views what both Democrats and Republicans say are serious ethical lapses.

   The list is written in the first person and is structured around two dozen or so topics, starting with sensitive issues like his travel and security spending, and whether he improperly maintained a secret email address, “sooner7@epa.gov,” named for the Oklahoma Sooners. The document also prepares Mr. Pruitt for questions on polarizing policy topics like why the E.P.A. removed climate change from its four-year strategic plan and restructured agency operations.

   The responses show that Mr. Pruitt is prepared to push back hard against accusations that he misspent taxpayer money and to blame both career and political staff members as well as his security detail for a myriad spending decisions.

   If Mr. Pruitt is asked about the roughly $163,000 in first-class flights he has taken since assuming the helm of E.P.A., the document suggests that Mr. Pruitt will say he was obligated to take the advice of his security team that first class was safer. But, he may tell lawmakers, he has since instructed officers to address security threats in new ways, including by allowing him to sit in coach.

   “Changes have already begun occurring and I have been flying coach,” was one possible response, according to the document.

   If he is asked about the 67 percent and 72 percent raises given to current aides who worked for Mr. Pruitt when he served as attorney general of Oklahoma, the document indicates he should answer that all decisions were made by others. The raises are suspended while the White House reviews them, he may say.

   And if asked about reports that staff members who questioned the administrator’s spending were demoted, reassigned or requested new jobs, the document shows that Mr. Pruitt may suggest other reasons for the moves.

   One of those former employees is John E. Reeder, the E.P.A. deputy chief of staff who joined American University as a temporary “executive in residence” after losing many of his job responsibilities. Two administration officials said Mr. Reeder was among the top officials who voiced concerns directly to Mr. Pruitt about his spending.

   The document indicates that Mr. Pruitt is prepared to tell members of Congress that Mr. Reeder was questioned by the House Oversight Committee in 2015 about whether he and other E.P.A. leaders failed to address multiple allegations of workplace sexual harassment. Mr. Reeder declined to comment on the matter. But in sworn testimony in April 2015, he denied the allegation and no disciplinary action was recommended or taken.

   If Mr. Pruitt is asked about Kevin Chmielewski, who served as Mr. Pruitt’s deputy chief of staff for operations before he was fired on March 18, the document shows that the E.P.A. chief may say that Mr. Chmielewski “had performance issues.” Mr. Chmielewski has told associates that he believes complaints against him were retaliation for his raising objections about Mr. Pruitt's stewardship of taxpayer money — concerns that Mr. Chmielewski has since brought to members of Congress. Mr. Chmielewski did not respond to requests for comment.

   Many of the “hot topics” items mirror answers given by the E.P.A. press office over the past several months in response to various scandals. For example, Mr. Pruitt may intend to deflect questions about why he paid to to have his office swept for listening devices by noting — as the agency has before — that Lisa Jackson, who led the E.P.A. under President Barack Obama, did the same.

   Other allegations, like reports that the E.P.A. looked into a bulletproof desk and a bulletproof sport utility vehicle, Mr. Pruitt may flatly deny, saying he wants to “put this rumor to rest,” according to the memo. He may note that after a man opened fire on Republican members of Congress during practice for the Congressional Baseball Game last year, his security detail draped bulletproof vests over the car seats.

   Two people familiar with Mr. Pruitt’s security spending said his supporters internally explained increased security spending by suggesting that the administrator could have been at the congressional baseball practice. During his rise to prominence in Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt managed and co-owned the Oklahoma City minor-league baseball team, and had been invited to the congressional practices.

   Mr. Pruitt may also say that “at no point” did the E.P.A. hire private security guards in Italy to protect him during a trip there in June of 2017. Democrats asked about that contract in a letter to Mr. Pruitt this month based on information provided by Mr. Chmielewski.

   Mr. Pruitt’s goal on Thursday may be to convince Republicans that his personal spending issues will not be an ongoing political distraction. Representative Greg Walden, the Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, “It will be a cordial reception, but he’s got some tough questions to answer.”

   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/climate/pruitt-epa-congress-defense.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Ewire: White House Takes a Tougher Line with Pruitt Ahead of Hearing

   Apr 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

   Tensions between EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump White House over Pruitt's alleged ethics scandals appear to be heightening just one day before Pruitt is slated to appear before two House committees -- his first congressional appearances since the ethics and other scandals broke.

   White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told NPR April 25 that the administrator will have to answer questions about the scandals “in short order."

   While White House officials have in the past praised Pruitt's deregulatory efforts and defended his actions, Gidley stopped short of doing so. “I can tell you that the president and the White House are aware of these issues and these stories, that they raise some serious concerns, there’s no question about that,” he said. “We’re looking into those questions and concerns as well.”

   The comments come as reports indicate that Pruitt rejected offers from White House officials to help him prepare for a grueling barrage of questions about his ethics and spending troubles from lawmakers, reportedly telling them to “get lost.”

   The explosive report from the Daily Beast and later confirmed by several other outlets signals a growing lack of trust between the embattled Pruitt and the White House.

   “EPA officials privately questioned the wisdom of putting Pruitt’s fate in the hands of presidential aides who are apparently less than committed to his political survival,” the story says.

   The April 26 hearings before a House Energy & Commerce subcommittee and a House Appropriations panel are ostensibly about the Trump administration's fiscal year 2019 budget request.

   But nearly everyone in Washington knows most of the questions for Pruitt will focus on the growing number of reports about his alleged ethical and spending lapses -- and even top Republican lawmakers are approaching the hearings warily.

   Even Pruitt's GOP defenders in the Senate are concerned. As several outlets have previously reported, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), likely Pruitt's closest ally, is calling for the Environment & Public Works Committee to hold a hearing on the raft of ethics and spending allegations surrounding the administrator.

   Several other GOP senators who have long defended Pruitt are also now raising concerns. “I have questions about use of taxpayer dollars. I want to make sure taxpayers are getting value for their dollars, make sure money is being spent appropriately. So there continue to be serious questions,” said Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY), according to a Washington Post story. “We’ll see what comes out of the hearings on Thursday.”

   The Post also printed a barbed quote from Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-LA), who told reporters that “it’d be way cooler if he would behave. And I don’t mean to be too harsh, but you can’t just go around acting like a big shot, and you can’t go around seeing how close you can come to the line, and you can’t go around disrespecting taxpayer dollars. You can’t do it. You shouldn’t do it. And it shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s part of the swamp that we’re trying to clean up.”

   The Senate's third-ranking Republican, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) also said Pruitt has “some serious questions to answer,” according to Bloomberg, and that the stream of allegations creates “a drip, drip out there, and that makes it harder to be effective in his job.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-white-house-takes-tougher-line-pruitt-ahead-hearing
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Scientists Say They Want Open Data — but Not Pruitt's Plan

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

   By Scott Waldman

   Scientists are worried that EPA's new plan to increase transparency will undermine it instead.

   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday unveiled a long-awaited plan to require that EPA studies used in future regulations must have open and transparent data. Pruitt said the proposed rule is part of his larger effort to dramatically reform the way science is used at the agency, which also included the removal of Science Advisory Board members who received EPA grants and were replaced with industry-friendly researchers.

   "The science we use is going to be transparent, it's going to be reproducible, it's going to be able to be analyzed by those in the marketplace, and those that watch what we do can make informed decisions about whether we've drawn the proper conclusions or not," Pruitt said yesterday at EPA headquarters.

   But some of the biggest critics of Pruitt's plans are scientists who say they've already been working to boost transparency for years.

   Researchers have long grappled with how to make the peer-review process more accessible, how to make more research replicable and how to better share data, said Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

   Scientists are always discussing ways to make their work more transparent, accessible and instructive for the community at large, Goldman added. The proposed EPA rule establishes a set of political hoops for researchers that will take more of their time, she said. And many won't be able or willing to devote more effort to the additional red tape put up by Pruitt.

   "This is not about all of the details that scientists need to scrutinize each other's work. That information is already widely available, and scientists spend a tremendous amount of time disclosing all of their data and methods to get their work published," she said. "This is adding additional burdens; it's not the information that is required for appropriate peer review and reproducibility of studies. This is clearly just a political move."

   Scientists and leading scientific organizations were largely excluded from EPA's process in formulating the proposed rule. EPA also shut out reporters from its transparency announcement yesterday as it welcomed industry allies who have long pushed for deregulation in Washington, D.C. The audience allowed into the event, visible on a livestream of the 15-minute presentation, included a core group of those who deny mainstream climate science and who have worked to tear down climate regulations. In addition to House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the audience included Will Happer, an emeritus physics professor at Princeton University and possible candidate to be Trump's science adviser; Marc Morano, who runs a climate science denial website; Steve Milloy, a Trump EPA transition team member; and Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

   Richard Shiffrin, a professor of cognitive science at Indiana University, Bloomington, thinks what's needed is just minor tuning to the scientific research process, not a full-scale overhaul, he said recently at the National Academy of Sciences. There is an entire cottage industry that focuses on the problems of science, which creates the false public impression that much needs to be fixed, he said.

   "The fact that we're talking about solutions still puts the focus on problems that we're trying to solve," he said in an interview with E&E News. "It's as if science is broken, so the public and Congress and the president and everyone else gets the impression that things are falling apart because scientists themselves keep talking about how bad things are and how things need to be fixed. Well, that's not true; things are going incredibly well, so I think that we have to change the narrative and make it clear to the public that science is advancing so rapidly that we can't even keep up."

   In a press release yesterday, EPA cited the editorial policies of Nature and Science magazines as a justification for its proposed rule. Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and publisher of the Science family of journals, said it is dedicated to having as much peer-reviewed information as possible, while the proposed rule is just the opposite. He said EPA's effort is in the name of transparency but will shut out invaluable and necessary research that informs regulations that save lives.

   "Its effect will be and maybe its intention is to be able to exclude inconvenient scientific evidence without acknowledging that it has been excluded," he said. "In other words, they'll say, 'We didn't exclude that because it doesn't qualify' so they don't have to explain that they ever excluded it, so that's just the opposite of transparency."Pruitt allies warn of 'crisis' in science

   Critics argue that Pruitt's plan would prevent the use of groundbreaking studies, including those that draw on decades of research that links air pollution to human health. At the same time, it would allow the use of studies, including those conducted by Science Advisory Board members selected by Pruitt and funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that downplay health risks of air pollution (Climatewire, April 11).

   The proposed rule would allow some data to avoid public scrutiny, as it carved out an exemption for industry data that is considered confidential business information, something the chemical industry has sought.

   Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, ranking Democrat on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, called Pruitt's proposal an "insidious plan" designed to hamstring the ability of EPA to protect public health. She has fought efforts by her GOP colleague Smith to get a version of the proposed rule passed into law for years.

   "Republicans weren't able to get their 'secret science' bills signed into law, but now they have Administrator Pruitt to do the bidding of industry at the EPA," she said in a statement. "This rule isn't about 'scientific transparency.' It's about undermining public health and the environment."

   Smith has pushed such legislation for years, arguing that it would make EPA's work more transparent. Smith has alleged that EPA uses "secret science," and he has accused government researchers of fraud. At the agency headquarters yesterday, he said the new regulation is in response to a larger scientific discussion.

   "Many in the scientific community agree that increased access to data is essential for reproducibility and objective analysis," he said. "Open access to scientific data fosters good policymaking. The American people have a right to understand how and why regulatory decisions are made."

   In a House office building last week, Smith feted a group of researchers from the National Association of Scholars who routinely attack climate science and who say in a new report that there is a "crisis" in science because too much of it cannot be reproduced. The authors of its new report, titled "The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science," say government agencies should establish review commissions to determine which existing regulations are based on reproducible research and to rescind those that are not, a process that could affect key provisions of the Clean Air Act, among other regulations.

   "A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology," they wrote. "Improper research techniques, lack of accountability, disciplinary and political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs."

   The group has long cast doubt on established and mainstream climate science. The National Association of Scholars, tax filings show, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the Charles Koch Foundation as well as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, both of which have supported attacks on climate science. The afterword of the report was written by Happer of Princeton.

   https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080031
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

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

Chemical Management News

6. FDA Details Its New Push on Heavy Metals in Food

   Apr 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Tom Neltner

   In May 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN) announced it had “established a Toxic Elements Working Group whose mission in part is to develop a strategy for prioritizing and modernizing the Center’s activities with respect to food/toxic element combinations using a risk-based approach.” FDA set a goal of limiting lead “to the greatest extent feasible.”

   
   

   http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/25/fda-new-push-heavy-metals-food/

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Canada Clears 59 Inorganic, Organometallic Substances from Further Assessment

   Apr 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch

   By Julie Miller

   The Canadian government has listed 59 inorganic and organometallic substances it considers have been addressed in other assessment activities and will, therefore, not undergo further evaluation at this time under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).

   The 20 April list includes:

   an arsenic-containing substance (10H-phenoxarsine, 10,10’-oxybis-) that was included in the assessment of "arsenic and its compounds";

   a cadmium-containing substance (hexanoic acid, 2-ethyl-, cadmium salt), included in the assessment of cadmium compounds;

   11 substances that were included in the assessment of chromium compounds;

   two fluoride compounds addressed in the assessment of inorganic fluorides;

   four substances that were included in the assessment of nickel compounds;

   26 ammonia compounds, addressed in the assessment of "ammonia in the aquatic environment";

   four uranium-containing substances, addressed in the assessment of "releases of radionuclides from nuclear facilities" and drinking water guidelines for uranium;

   two substances covered by Health Canada's risk assessment strategy for mercury and its compounds and the drinking water guidelines for mercury; and

   eight lead-containing substances considered to have been addressed by Health Canada's Final human health state of the science report on lead and risk management strategy on lead.

   Environment and Climate Change Canada will accept public comment for 60 days.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/66205/canada-clears-59-inorganic-organometallic-substances-from-further-assessment
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

8. Justices Uphold Patent Review Process in Oil Field Tech Fight

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

   By Ellen M. Gilmer

   The Supreme Court yesterday rejected an oil and gas company's bid to upend the way U.S. officials review patents.

   In a long-running legal dispute stemming from hydraulic-fracturing-related patents, the high court ruled 7-2 yesterday that a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal does not violate patent holders' constitutional rights.

   The case centers on two Houston-based oil field service companies — Oil States Energy Services LLC and Greene's Energy Group LLC — with a dispute over technology that protects wellhead equipment during fracking operations. But the decision has broader stakes, upholding the government's process for patent challenges.

   At issue is the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, created by Congress via the America Invents Act six years ago. Instead of going to district court, challengers can go to the PTAB to argue that a previously issued patent was approved erroneously.

   Oil States lost its patent for the fracking-related technology after Greene's, a competitor, went to the PTAB to challenge the validity of the patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision.

   During November oral arguments, Oil States argued that the process was unfair and unconstitutional, violating the separation of powers by allowing the PTAB to function as a court and robbing the company of its right to a jury trial (Energywire, Nov. 28, 2017).

   The Supreme Court rejected the argument yesterday, ruling that patents represent "public rights" that are subject to review and cancellation by the government.

   The PTAB process "is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO's authority to conduct that reconsideration," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

   Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, arguing that the review board lacks the independence that a federal court would have.

   "Today, the government invites us to retreat from the promise of judicial independence," Gorsuch wrote. "Until recently, most everyone considered an issued patent a personal right — no less than a home or farm — that the federal government could revoke only with the concurrence of independent judges."

   Many property rights advocates lamented the majority's decision yesterday.

   "It perverts the function of the constitutional protections afforded to the property rights of all U.S. citizens, an increasingly commonplace occurrence today under the expanding and all-encompassing administrative state," George Mason University law professor Adam Mossoff said in a statement.

   Josh Malone, a fellow at the advocacy group U.S. Inventor, argued that the ruling will be detrimental to American innovation. The National Retail Federation, meanwhile, celebrated the news, arguing that it will allow the government to quickly weed out "patent trolls."

   Dorsey & Whitney LLP attorney Clint Conner said in an email that the ruling "will discourage patent holders from pursuing haphazard enforcement measures."

   https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/25/stories/1060079997
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Climate Change Looms Large as FERC Reviews Pipeline Policy

   Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Greenwire

   By Sam Mintz and Ellen M. Gilmer

   The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's comprehensive review of natural gas policy will likely open a new chapter in a long debate over how the agency weighs the environmental impacts of pipeline projects.

   FERC officially kicked off its first review of guidelines for pipeline applications since 1999 last week with a notice requesting feedback on four broad categories (Energywire, April 20). One of them: How should FERC consider environmental impacts?

   Another question raised is whether FERC should calculate potential greenhouse gas emissions from upstream activities, like the drilling of natural gas wells, and downstream gas consumption. The review also asks if FERC should use the "social cost of carbon" tool in its consideration of environmental impacts.

   Those are familiar questions to anyone who has followed FERC's shifting policies and legal strategies. FERC's review is also expected to delve into issues that have dogged the agency in recent court fights — notably battles over FERC's 2016 approvals of the Sabal Trail pipeline and the broader Southeast Market Pipelines Project without analyzing the planet-warming emissions anticipated from Florida power plants that would burn gas transported by the pipeline.

   Last August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rebuffed the agency and ordered it to conduct additional analysis of the project's downstream climate impacts (Energywire, Aug. 23, 2017).

   That decision triggered a high-stakes supplemental review process and an urgent — and successful — effort by FERC and developers to keep Sabal Trail from being shut down.

   Amid the legal drama, environmental lawyers and outside experts set to work making recommendations for how FERC should conduct its climate analysis. In the end, many advocates were dissatisfied with the commission's approach. They're likely to raise the issues again during the pipeline policy review.

   In particular, they took issue with FERC's refusal to determine whether downstream greenhouse gas emissions from Sabal Trail qualified as "significant" under the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the climate review determined that the pipeline project would increase emissions 3.6 to 9.9 percent over Florida's 2015 levels, the commission concluded that it would be inappropriate to deem that increase significant or insignificant because there's no widely accepted threshold for those labels.

   Experts in environmental law pushed back on the conclusion, noting that the agency routinely uses its expertise and discretion to determine what's significant in other contexts, including impacts on wetlands. Plus, they argued, several state agencies have agreed on levels at which emissions should be considered significant.

   Environmentalists argue that FERC can better evaluate impacts by using a variety of available tools, including the social cost of carbon, a metric that weighs the cost of emissions. The commission has repeatedly spurned the metric in recent years, maintaining that it is too imprecise to be useful.

   Democratic FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur referenced the Sabal Trail case in a recent FERC meeting and urged commenters to submit detailed comments on the social cost of carbon and how FERC should consider indirect greenhouse gas emissions when it considers whether a project is in the public interest.

   "I really would like to take a hard look in this area," she said. "How should we consider upstream and downstream GHG emissions in determining whether a project is in the public interest; whether and how we should use the social cost of carbon; whether that's an appropriate measurement standard for climate impacts that we can use in our dockets. There's been a lot of debate on that, obviously, on the floor and in our recent dockets. Those are things I'm particularly interested in getting focused comments on."

   Commenters are expected to weigh in heavily on the social cost of carbon, along with other tools, including carbon budgets and an EPA greenhouse gas equivalency calculator.

   And while it remains to be seen to what extent the broad review will bring these issues further into the light, it seems like the kind of platform that FERC has been waiting for to develop more decisive policy.

   When critics raised the issue in the Sabal Trail case, FERC staff wrote that the climate review for the pipeline wasn't the right forum for delving into the issue.

   "These comments raise matters of Commission policy that are more appropriate for the Commission to consider and address in a Commission order, rather than for the final [supplemental environmental impact statement] to respond and address," the Sabal Trail climate analysis says.'Under a microscope'

   Some environmentalists, applauding the review as long-overdue, are hopeful that this will be the forum in which FERC makes or at least considers changes to its environmental and emissions processes.

   "FERC is under a microscope right now," said Gillian Giannetti, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

   "FERC recognizes that landowners are frustrated, that courts have intervened and outlined weaknesses in their current reviews. FERC does not want to be an agency that is not trusted by the very people that are directly affected by its decisions. And FERC is currently filled by five very capable, intelligent people," she said.

   NRDC and a coalition of advocacy groups wrote to FERC last week asking it to, among other things, determine the need for projects through an "all relevant factors" approach. Right now, the agency typically determines the need for a project simply by examining precedent agreements, or contracts between pipeline developers and prospective shippers.

   A reworked determination of need could mean the agency's review of a pipeline would look at environmental impacts both during that stage and in the formal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

   In an ideal world, Gianetti said, that first step would include tools like the social cost of carbon.

   "Within a need analysis, which is set up essentially as an economic test, there could be a real benefit to using the social cost of carbon," she said.

   "One of the places where there's been huge development in the last 20 years is in technology of being able to quantify, qualify and monetize environmental impacts," Giannetti added.

   Others in the environmental activism world are less hopeful that the review will lead to change.

   "Chairman [Kevin] McIntyre's FERC is just as dirty as those of the past. FERC is nothing but a rubber stamp for dirty fossil fuels infrastructure. That is clearly not going to change, if anything, the rubber stamp will be swifter and heavier," said Maya van Rossum, head of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, in a statement last week after the review was initiated.

   https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080071
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Gray Oak Pipeline, Corpus Terminal to Move More Permian Crude to Texas Coast

    Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis

    Two big Permian Basin crude oil takeaway solutions were launched on Tuesday, with a pipeline in the works to carry up to 1 million b/d from West Texas to the Gulf Coast, and a companion terminal.

    Phillips 66 Partners announced construction is a go for Gray Oak Pipeline LLC following an initial open season. Gray Oak, set to be in service by late 2019, would transport supply from the West Texas counties of Reeves, Loving, Winkler and Crane to two coastal locations: near a new terminal in Corpus Christi in South Texas, as well as Sweeney/Freeport destinations south of Houston.

    Gray Oak also received enough binding commitments through precedent agreements to launch a second binding open season on Thursday (April 26), and “the ultimate scope and capacity of the pipeline will depend on the outcome of the second open season.”

    Depending on the second open season results, Gray Oak initially would transport up to 700,000 b/d-plus to downstream markets. “Assuming the pipeline is fully subscribed, its capacity could ultimately be expanded to approximately 1 million b/d of long-haul takeaway,” the partnership said.

    The pipeline is owned through a joint venture that is 75% held by Phillips 66 Partners and 25% by Andeavor. Enbridge Inc. has an option to acquire up to one-third interest, which if exercised, would shrink Phillips 66 Partners’ stake to 42.25%.

    Near Corpus Christi in Ingleside, the pipeline would connect to the South Texas Gateway Terminal, a new deepwater, open access marine terminal that would be built and operated by Buckeye Partners LP. Buckeye would control 50% interest, with Phillips 66 Partners and Andeavor each holding a one-quarter stake.

    Initial storage capacity for the terminal is 3.4 million bbl, which is expected to start up operations by the end of 2019, in line with startup of the pipeline.

    As designed, the terminal would be sited on a 212-acre waterfront parcel at the mouth of Corpus Christi Bay. The facility would serve as the primary outlet for crude oil and condensate volumes from Gray Oak and offer 3.4 million bbl of crude oil storage capacity. It also is to have two deepwater vessel docks capable of berthing very large crude carrier, i.e. VLCC, petroleum tankers as part of the initial scope of construction.

    The terminal, according to Buckeye, ultimately could be expanded to include more than 10 million bbl of storage capacity and multiple docks, as well as other inbound pipeline connections.

    “The South Texas Gateway Terminal will serve as a premier open-access deepwater marine terminal in the Port of Corpus Christi,” said Buckeye’s Khalid Muslih, president of the Global Marine Terminals business unit. “The terminal will provide customers with logistics solutions that connect the region’s rapidly growing crude oil production with advantaged access to global markets…

    “This project expands our presence in the important Corpus Christi market, which we believe offers strong competitive advantages for waterborne shipments of crude oil and other petroleum products from the fast growing Permian and Eagle Ford shale plays.”

    The Corpus terminal joins an array of projects underway in South Texas, which has become a go-to destination that would extend the massive oil and gas infrastructure about four hours north in the Houston area.

    Assuming the Permian-to-Corpus pipeline is upsized, Gray Oak would combine with two other crude oil takeaway projects underway from West Texas by Cactus II Pipeline and Epic Y Grade Pipeline LP to provide egress for 5.1 million b/d of Permian production through the end of 2020, according to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.

    A Plains All American Pipeline LP subsidiary in January said it would construct Cactus II to add 585,000 b/d of takeaway capacity from the Permian to South Texas. The Epic Crude Oil Pipeline already underway, would carry 440,000 b/d to Corpus. Epic also has a natural gas liquids pipeline project in the works that is running parallel to the oil line.

    A dizzying lineup of other oil and gas related endeavors also are progressing. In December, global crude oil trader Vitol Inc. and a Hilcorp. Energy Co. affiliate said they were finalizing plans to develop a state-of-the-art export terminal near Corpus that also would move Permian basin volumes to overseas markets. The proposed Harvest Pipeline Co. plans to lease a 22-acre tract from the Port of Corpus Christi.

    ExxonMobil Corp. and Saudi Basic Industries Corp., aka SABIC, also have agreed to develop a world-class ethane steam cracker near Corpus, a facility that as planned would be the largest in the world. If the partners green light the final investment decision, the project would be able to produce 1.8 million metric tons/year of ethylene.

    In addition, Cheniere Energy Inc. is readying another liquefied natural gas export project for the Corpus region.

    “Recently announced improvements to our existing flagship Buckeye Texas Partners terminal, which sits along the ship channel in the Port of Corpus Christi, have expanded its leading marine terminalling capabilities,” Muslih said. “This combined marine terminal presence in Corpus Christi will provide our customers with advantaged last mile solutions, including unmatched connectivity to two recently announced Permian Basin pipeline expansions. We believe that these assets represent a competitive advantage for Buckeye and position us at the forefront of the fast-growing U.S. crude oil export movement.”

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114148-gray-oak-pipeline-corpus-terminal-to-move-more-permian-crude-to-texas-coast
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Cheniere, PHMSA Reach Agreement on Sabine Pass LNG Tank Leaks

    Apr 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Charlie Passut

    Cheniere Energy Inc. has been given authority by federal regulators under a modified timetable to determine what caused the leaks discovered earlier this year at two liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks at its Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana.

    Under a consent agreement and order issued last Friday by the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Cheniere agreed to conduct a root cause failure analysis (RFCA) and a repair and modification plan for one of the two tanks that leaked, S-103. The agreement also calls for Cheniere to reseal the annular plate for a second tank, S-101.

    Cheniere will be required to prepare a fitness-for-service plan for S-101 that meets certain technical requirements. It also is required to mechanically disable the bottom-fill line valve and monitoring temperatures within the tank's annular space, and include an alarm that would be triggered when conditions exceed S-101's design parameters. The company must also evaluate S-101 to determine whether the tank has similar characteristics of the S-103 that caused the leaks.

    PHMSA and Cheniere agreed that a qualified, independent third party will conduct and complete the RFCA for S-103 by May 31. The third party will also perform an assessment of all five storage tanks at Sabine Pass, and submit a final report to PHMSA's Southwest Region director outlining any recommendations.

    The agreement also stipulates that within 120 days of completing the final RFCA for S-103, Cheniere must evaluate the remaining three tanks -- S-102, S-104 and S-105 -- and their associated systems to determine whether any additional action is warranted, in light of the RFCA's findings.

    Cheniere expects to eventually return all five tanks to service.

    “Cheniere’s goal has been to safely and quickly address this incident, and believes there is not, and has not been, a public safety threat," Cheniere spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder told NGI. "The consensual agreement now in place is focused on bringing [S-101] safely back into service, continuing our root cause analysis, and pursuing a repair plan to bring [S-103] back into service. Cheniere remains committed to a continued productive relationship and ongoing collaboration with PHMSA."

    Last February, PHMSA issued a corrective action order (CAO) requiring Cheniere to shut down the tanks and "take certain corrective actions" after employees discovered on Jan. 22 that LNG had leaked from one tank at the Cameron Parish, LA, facility. The next month, representatives from PHMSA and Cheniere met in Houston to discuss next steps over the issue.

    PHMSA's original CAO included requirements that Cheniere complete the RFCA within 120 days, and evaluate the three tanks that did not leak within 60 days of completing the RFCA.

    According to PHMSA, Cheniere employees discovered that LNG had leaked into the annular space between the inner and outer walls of S-103. The leak eventually caused a crack in the outer tank wall, allowing LNG to pool in a secondary containment area around S-103. A subsequent investigation by PHMSA found that LNG had also leaked from S-101.

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114149-cheniere-phmsa-reach-agreement-on-sabine-pass-lng-tank-leaks
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

12. U.S. Helps Build a Cyber Bulwark for the Black Sea Grid

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    In December 2015, hackers seized control over part of Ukraine's power grid, cutting off the lights for nearly a quarter-million people in an unprecedented cyberattack.

    A year later, energy officials from Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova and Georgia met in Kiev to find ways to defend their own electricity networks from this new, menacing threat. Days after the conference, the suspected Russian hackers struck again — this time shutting down a transmission substation north of the Ukrainian capital.

    Last week, many of the same officials gathered in Tbilisi, Georgia, to ensure any third strike on Ukraine or another Black Sea country misses its mark. The series of meetings are part of a quiet but urgent U.S.-backed effort to bolster Europe's critical infrastructure networks against hackers.

    "This is where the action is taking place," said Art House, chief cybersecurity risk officer for Connecticut, who traveled to Georgia for the program last week, which was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. "Cybersecurity is not conjecture: This is part of daily life."

    House, a former grid regulator, has been serving as a sort of American cyber policy ambassador since the first workshop in Kiev a year and a half ago.

    Since then, authorities from the four countries have met in Estonia, the U.S., Armenia and now Georgia to game out their own cybersecurity strategies for protecting critical infrastructure, comparing and contrasting with E.U. and U.S. approaches.

    A spokeswoman for Georgia's National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission said the meetings are aimed at finding the best ways for Black Sea regulators to approach their own regulated utilities, many of which are state-owned enterprises. A trip to the U.S. last fall included a "mock exercise" to review regulators' cybersecurity performance.

    "Cybersecurity's a new topic for them," said Andrew Bochman, senior cyber and energy security strategist at the Idaho National Laboratory, who participated in last week's workshop in Georgia's capital, Tbilisi. "They're all starting with relatively blank slates, and we're showing them what we did [in the U.S.].

    "We're not saying it's perfect, but it gives them some things to get a head start," Bochman said.One issue, many strategies

    The American approach to grid cybersecurity varies based on a utility's size and location.

    The North American Electric Reliability Corp., a regulatory nonprofit that reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, sets and enforces cybersecurity rules for the bulk power sector. NERC can impose $1-million-per-day penalties to companies that fail to meet its critical infrastructure protection standards.

    Smaller utilities, including those that operate the distribution lines running out to most homes and businesses, face a wider array of regulations set at the state level. Many state public service commissions have favored a voluntary approach to cybersecurity oversight, posing questions to utilities to gain a better understanding of gaps in their defenses.

    House, formerly head of Connecticut's Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, kick-started informal discussions with regulated utilities and encouraged companies to conduct third-party audits of their digital defenses.

    Washington state's Utilities and Transportation Commission has led on-site audits of utilities' security plans, while expecting power companies to put their own networks to the test by hiring friendly "white hat" hackers (Energywire, Feb. 17, 2015).

    "Energy companies across the globe are experiencing this potential threat," said Washington UTC Commissioner Ann Rendahl, who did not attend the recent Georgia trip but took part in several previous Black Sea workshops. "I don't think it matters whether it's Washington state, or Connecticut, Armenia or Ukraine — it's the same issue."

    Rendahl said she shared her experiences meeting with regulated companies, from hashing out when new cybersecurity investments would be prudent, to evaluating the state of companies' cyber readiness.

    "It's been a good educational experience for these four countries," she said of the program, which is organized by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. "[Regulators] have a better idea of how to approach this with their companies; they have some tools and models to use."

    One such tool has already taken hold in Georgia, according to a USAID funding announcement. The Georgian State Electrosystem, a state-owned electricity transmission system operator, is looking to assess its own cyber readiness using a cybersecurity maturity model developed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

    Last week's workshop in Georgia brought regulators together under one roof, rather than electricity companies like GSE. But a parallel USAID-funded cybersecurity program for Black Sea utilities has also taken root in the region, facilitated by the U.S. Energy Association and officials from the European Union.

    Paul Stack, program manager for the Europe and Eurasia cybersecurity initiative at NARUC, leads the regulatory track.

    He pointed out in an interview that many of the participating countries have aspirations to join the European Union and are in the early stages of adding connected technologies to their power grids.

    "As you roll out smart meters and grid modernization programs, you are introducing all sorts of cybersecurity vulnerabilities to the system," Stack said. "We're working to help promote energy security to usher in market liberalization — we can't really do that effectively without addressing cybersecurity."

    House said his hosts in the Black Sea — unlike many U.S. audiences — need little convincing of the reality of the threat.

    "I don't have to tell my Ukrainian counterpart that cyber is a potential weapon," he said. "There are artillery exchanges going on in the east of his country, and cyberattacks have been part of an overall conflict between his country and Russia."System shock

    Cyberattacks are often painted as borderless threat — any skilled enough hacker, from anywhere, can use a computer with a internet connection to wreak havoc halfway across the world.

    But there's no avoiding the fact that Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine and Moldova, all loosely ringing the Black Sea in southeastern Europe, lie in the backyard of a 21st-century cyber powerhouse — Russia.

    Ten years ago, Georgia faced a new form of hybrid warfare, as Russia combined a ground invasion replete with tanks and soldiers with cyber strikes on key government websites, including the site of then-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

    Though Russian forces ultimately withdrew, then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev quickly recognized the independence of two formerly Georgian territories, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. To this day, Georgia considers them to be under Russian occupation, and the majority of nations worldwide do not officially recognize either republic.

    The cyber-physical nature of the Russo-Georgian War was a harbinger of future conflicts. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and later dispatched troops to eastern stretches of the country to fight alongside pro-Russian separatists.

    The ongoing conflict has also flared up in western Ukraine, which has been hit by some of the most sophisticated cyberattacks in world history.

    From attacks on the power grid to crippling "ransomware" attacks on banks and government services, Ukraine has earned a dubious distinction of being a "training ground" for cyberwar (Energywire, Jan. 11, 2017).

    Just this week, Ukraine's energy ministry fell prey to ransomware hackers — though experts suggested the attack was not likely the work of nation-state hackers.

    The recent NARUC workshops have given the chance for U.S. participants to draw lessons from their Black Sea peers.

    "Thanks to Ukraine's willingness to share some of what's happened to them, the rest of the world is learning," noted Bochman of the Idaho National Laboratory. "The training ground becomes the classroom."

    A USAID official said the focus of the program is "to prepare our counterparts to address threats, wherever they originate."

    But Russia looms large in practice — not least because any U.S. speakers and PowerPoints at the workshops are translated into Russian, shared as second language among regulators from the region.

    The USAID official alluded to the importance of the region to U.S. strategic interests, citing several countries' role providing "a major transit corridor for energy supplies to other U.S. partners and allies in Europe."

    "The program has a direct benefit to the United States," the official pointed out, noting that "recent cyberattacks in the region exposed vulnerabilities in power systems, which might have been a test for future attacks" on U.S. soil.

    USAID said it has allocated less than $500,000 to the overall program but expects that the four countries will uncover necessary grid upgrades worth tens of millions of dollars.

    Regulators from Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia have all drafted cybersecurity strategies since the program launched in late 2016 — a "pretty remarkable accomplishment," according to Stack of NARUC.

    "Strategy is a critical component," he said. "You want to know where you are, where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start taking first steps."

    Stack added in an interview yesterday that Black Sea regulators were already looking beyond their internal strategies by exploring new cyber risk assessments, polices and standards alongside lawmakers and regulated utilities.

    "Each regulator has to chart their own course, and we're here to help them figure out which routes are available to them," he said.

    First steps can take some convincing, even for countries dealing with "clear and present dangers," noted House. Economic regulators have had to push back against the notion that cybersecurity should fall to military and intelligence services, he said.

    "To get started, you've got to shock the system," he said. "It doesn't happen with just one session."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/25/stories/1060079963
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Senate Prods DHS on Ability to Ward off Cyberthreats

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

    By Blake Sobczak

    Russian hackers recently broke into U.S. critical infrastructure networks but were blocked before they could wreak havoc, a top Department of Homeland Security official told Congress yesterday.

    Jeanette Manfra, DHS assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications, told members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that hackers never breached sensitive U.S. control systems, like those keeping the power grid running and key manufacturing plants online. A recent DHS alert attributed the infrastructure intrusions to Moscow (Energywire, March 16).

    "We were able to disrupt that [activity] before they got there — if that was even their intent," she said. "But we were concerned about what they were stealing; the schematics of the control system, for example. And so we wanted to ensure that everybody had access to this information and could defend themselves."

    Manfra also faced pointed questions about her agency's work protecting the integrity of U.S. voting systems ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

    But Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) noted that "we are aware that Russia has done far more than meddle in our elections," pressing Manfra and other witnesses on America's ability to parry an "existential" cyber strike on the power grid or financial systems.

    "I think we need to take [election security] seriously," he said. "But we need to keep all these things in perspective and really focus on the things that could really bring down this country."

    Manfra reported that the federal government "has matured a lot in thinking about cybersecurity" and offered high marks for DHS's ability to thwart the biggest cyberthreats.

    Gregory Wilshusen, director of information security issues at the Government Accountability Office, offered a more somber assessment.

    He pointed out that DHS has not developed metrics for assessing how critical industries, from dams to chemical plants, prepare for cyberattacks.

    Wilshusen also cited the lack of a centralized federal system for tracking security incidents and warned that DHS doesn't keep contact information on file for owners and operators of the most crucial U.S. infrastructure.

    While DHS has its work cut out for it, Wilshusen said private businesses haven't fared better in their handling of evolving cyberthreats.

    "We do examine the security controls of certain private companies," he said, alluding to past reports from the government watchdog. "We typically find just as many, if not worse, security [vulnerabilities] at those companies" than in federal networks.

    Yesterday's hearing, titled "Mitigating America's Cybersecurity Risk," unearthed several suggestions for Congress to help address security gaps.

    Manfra reiterated the value of rebranding her own agency — the nondescript National Protection and Programs Directorate — to become the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a step that requires an act of Congress.

    "It is very hard to go out and try to market our organization, which is purely dependent upon voluntary partnerships in critical infrastructure, with a name like the National Protection and Programs Directorate," she said.

    The third panelist at the hearing, Eric Rosenbach, co-director of Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, called on lawmakers to require certain critical infrastructure organizations to adopt a government cybersecurity framework.

    Rosenbach, who served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter during the Obama administration, lambasted the tepid official response to past strikes on critical infrastructure, such as brief cyberattacks on Ukraine's power grid in 2015 and 2016.

    "We're watching all these things happen. The Russians take down the power grid in the Ukraine, twice, and then our response — and this was during the time I was in [DOD] — was weak to none," he said. "That is not a good way to improve our overall security at a national level."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080017
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Environment News

14. The Northeast US Has a Carbon-Trading System. It Is Boosting, Not Hurting, State Economies.

    Apr 25, 2018 | Vox

    By David Roberts

    When climate hawks fantasize about climate policy, they tend to imagine a sweeping, economy-wide carbon tax, set at a high and rising rate. But as a political strategy, this hasn’t much worked; political restraints have meant that no such tax has emerged in the real world.

    But there is another political strategy, far more popular among actual policymakers. It goes something like this: The wise course is to start with a relatively low carbon price, targeted at sectors amenable to carbon reductions, and spend the revenue from it on things that clearly benefit the public. Set up that system, show that it can work, and then ratchet up its ambition until it is adequate to the task.

    This more incremental strategy is less sexy, but unlike the perpetual craving for revolution, it has gotten the ball rolling. According to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Initiative, some 42 countries and 25 subnational jurisdictions now price carbon.

    None of these carbon-pricing systems is reducing enough carbon fast enough. We still don’t know if it’s politically possible to get a price high enough to drive radical carbon reductions.

    What we do know, what has been amply demonstrated, is that it’s possible to set up a transparent, well-run carbon-pricing system that economically benefits the jurisdictions where it’s implemented and is politically resilient.

    Exhibit A is right here in the United States: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade system covering the power sector in 10 Northeastern states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. (New Jersey recently rejoined after Democrat Phil Murphy was elected governor; Virginia may also join in the wake of the election of Democrat Ralph Northam.)

    I wrote a longer post about RGGI here if you want to dig into the details; for now, let’s just look at the benefits accruing to the states involved. Perhaps if more jurisdictions are convinced that carbon pricing is a net benefit, some of the political resistance to higher carbon pricing can be eroded.The RGGI cap is not driving most of the electricity-sector emission reductions

    Since RGGI started in 2009, the Analysis Group has periodically assessed its economic impact on participating states. Its latest report, out last week, is of particular interest, as it covers the three-year compliance period from 2015 to 2017, a period that saw quite a bit of change.

    The economics of renewable energy changed, pollution control regulations changed, and some of the rules that govern regional energy markets changed, but most significantly, in December 2017, RGGI states completed their second mandatory Program Review, which resulted in a number of revisions to the program. Most notably, the regional carbon cap between 2020 and 2030 was reduced by 30 percent.

    That last part is important because the dirty secret of RGGI is that, so far, the carbon cap on the electricity sector (the dotted line) has been far above the sector’s actual emissions (the solid line):

    The way-too-high cap was the result of two things: one, the overweening caution of policymakers pioneering one of the first carbon-trading systems, and two, the fact that electricity-sector emissions have fallen much faster than expected, all over the US.

    It is only with the 2014 revisions to RGGI that the cap even got close to actual emissions, and only with the 2017 revisions that the cap threatens to actually start pushing them down faster than their “natural” rate in the long term.

    For now, emissions are still falling faster than the cap is declining. The cap is not driving that, for the most part. At least not yet. But the program is still working, thanks to three clever features built in from the beginning.RGGI is paying economic dividends to participating states

    First, the pollution permits distributed under the cap are not given out for free; they are auctioned. That guarantees that each state receives a stream of revenue.

    Second, no matter how little pressure the cap puts on emissions, the price of permits never falls below a set reserve price (just over $2 in 2017), so there’s always at least some revenue.

    And third, much of the revenue goes to “consumer-benefit programs,” including energy-efficiency programs and direct bill assistance. By agreement, 25 percent of the revenue is to go to such programs, but in practice, the total has been much larger.

    “As in the prior years,” Analysis Group writes, “during the 2015-2017 period [RGGI] states received and spent the roughly $1.0 billion in auction proceeds primarily on energy efficiency measures, community-based renewable energy projects, customer bill assistance, other GHG-emission reduction measures, and on research, education and job training programs.”

    The best way to think of RGGI, then, is as a relatively low carbon tax that transfers money from the owners of fossil fuel power plants to consumer-benefit programs.

    According to Analysis Group, it’s a pretty good deal for the states involved — the benefits of the investments outweigh the costs to consumers in higher electricity prices. In the 2015 to 2017 period, “the RGGI program led to $1.4 billion (net present value) of net positive economic activity in the nine-state region.” Every participating state’s economy and electricity consumers benefited.

    Here’s how the economic impacts break down by energy market:

    Spending money on efficiency and renewable energy programs is also good for jobs. Over the 2015 to 2017 period, taking into account gains and losses, Analysis Group estimates that RGGI led to “over 14,500 new job-years, cumulative over the study period, with each of the nine states experiencing net job-year additions.”

    Most RGGI states are not big fossil fuel producers, but most of the region’s power comes from fossil fuels, so fossil fuel imports are an enormous expense. Over the study period, Analysis Group estimates that RGGI states reduced spending on imported fossil fuels by $1.37 billion.

    For RGGI states, carbon policy has not been a sacrifice.What can be learned from RGGI

    As Analysis Group emphasizes, RGGI was not intended or designed to be an economic development policy. Ultimately, it should be judged by its success in gradually ratcheting down emissions from the power sector.

    Power sector emissions are down and the program is operating smoothly. That RGGI accomplished both while imposing no economic sacrifice (the opposite, actually) has to do with the fact that emissions were already on their way down — and that energy-efficiency investments are smart because the savings compound over time. Diverting money from fossil fuels to energy efficiency would produce a net economic benefit for any state, using almost any policy mechanism.

    But right now, RGGI amounts to a small carbon price on a small portion of the region’s emissions. It remains an open question how a program like RGGI would fare if it expanded into sectors less amenable to carbon reductions, like transportation or industry (sectors it is becoming increasingly urgent to address).

    Theoretically, a rising price on carbon could eventually make gasoline vehicles so expensive that consumers are forced en masse to EVs. But they might not be so sanguine about that as they are about small bumps in their electricity bills. When it comes to more stubborn sectors, progress is unlikely to unfold in the benign, orderly way that RGGI has proceeded so far.

    Basically, we don’t know what it looks like for a price on carbon to get high enough to emerge as a primary driver of rapid emission reductions. What we do know, thanks to RGGI and other systems, is that carbon-pricing systems can get established, nudge emission reductions along, and build some political capital.

    For the incrementalist political strategy to pay off, though, RGGI has to spend some of that capital and keep ratcheting up. Its true test will only come when its reach gets broader and its prices get higher.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/25/17269544/fossil-fuel-carbon-trading-economies-rggi-northeast
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Pompeo Unlikely to Alter U.S. Climate Policy

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo might be skeptical of climate science, but history suggests that he might not go out of his way to dismantle environmental regulations.

    That's not to say that Pompeo, a Republican, doesn't have orthodoxly conservative views on the environment.

    Greens have made much of the fact that Koch Industries Inc. contributed more to his congressional campaign in 2010 than to any other candidate. Part of that is explained by the location of his race. He was running to represent Wichita, Kan., home to Koch Industries.

    Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, praises him for being a vocal opponent of production tax credits for wind energy — a stance that is notable given that Pompeo was a profit-sharing partner in the Sunflower Wind Project as recently as 2007. It's a wind energy company.

    "He doesn't like corporate rent-seeking," said Ebell. "He doesn't like corporations coming to Washington looking for handouts." Ebell, like Pompeo, argues that wind energy is a prime culprit.

    As a congressman, Pompeo championed legislation to ease permitting for natural gas pipelines and was a consistent vote against environmental regulation during his six years on Capitol Hill. That earned him a 4 percent lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.

    But despite serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2011 to 2017, he doesn't have any legislative achievements on energy.

    "There's just almost no paper trail there," said Andrew Holland, a senior fellow for energy and climate at the American Security Project. "It's like this has never been his thing."

    Instead, the former Army captain focused on intelligence and natural security. He served on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence before President Trump tapped him last year to run the CIA. At his confirmation hearing for that position, he alarmed Democrats by dismissing the role that climate change plays in global destabilization.

    Then, when answering questions by a Senate panel this month, he noted that he found no "fault" with a February intelligence report that states that climate change-related problems "fuel economic and social discontent."

    The longtime skeptic of human-caused climate change also took a step toward affirming its cause.

    "I'm happy to concede there is likely a human component to that," he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

    Earlier this week, Pompeo's nomination for secretary of State was approved by the same committee. It was in doubt until the end, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unexpectedly supported him.

    Pompeo is expected to be confirmed by the full Senate later this week.

    It's a post with more sway over climate and energy policy than he's seen previously, including oversight of U.S. negotiations at the United Nations and in the Montreal Protocol.

    It's not clear from Pompeo's past and statements how he'll approach the job.

    International climate advocates were relieved to hear the CIA director embrace man-made warming — to the extent he did — and to speak positively about multilateral engagement.

    David Levai, senior research fellow for climate diplomacy and governance with the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, a French organization, said Pompeo's conciliatory tone was heartening after Trump chose John Bolton to be his national security adviser.

    "I saw a bit of better weather ahead on that," Levai said.

    Pompeo, an outspoken opponent of the Paris Agreement, hewed closely to Trump's stance on the 2015 deal. He panned it as unfair to the United States but left the door ajar for a potential U.S. return under the right circumstances. It amounted to a slightly more conciliatory position on Paris than Pompeo has taken in the past.

    Ebell said it wasn't surprising.

    "When senators are trying to get nominees on record opposing an administration position, the nominee has to very carefully and very generally and not make commitments," he said. "And I think from what I saw of Mr. Pompeo's testimony, that was what he was trying to do on several issues."

    But a look at Pompeo's record on energy and climate at the CIA and in Congress hints that these aren't priority areas for him. And with a host of more pressing national security crises awaiting his arrival at Foggy Bottom, including negotiations with North Korea and the question of recertifying the Iran nuclear deal next month, it's even less likely energy and climate will pull focus.

    "I just think at the end of the day, it's just not an issue he's exercised about," said Andrew Light, a State Department climate adviser under President Obama who is now at the World Resources Institute.

    The status quo is likely something Pompeo would support, Light noted. Trump has already announced a withdrawal from Paris as soon as the agreement allows, in 2020.

    Career staff in policy bureaus continue to keep the trains running on day-to-day energy and climate diplomacy activities, and while Pompeo could interrupt that work, there's little evidence that he will. For example, the department has the authority to provide $3 million in dues to the U.N. climate process this fiscal year and has requested $6.4 million for fiscal 2019 to support the talks and international climate science work.

    George David Banks, a former energy adviser in the Trump White House, said he thought Pompeo wouldn't prevent those funds from being disbursed.

    "Doing so would reduce the administration's ability to prevent those organizations from pursuing initiatives that are detrimental to U.S. commercial and energy interests," Banks said.

    Tom Pyle, head of the conservative Institute for Energy Research, said he expected Pompeo to step in to prevent the Bureau of Energy Resources from "cherry-picking" renewable energy deployment abroad. Pompeo would instead focus on promoting Trump's energy dominance agenda, including the export of U.S. crude and natural gas, he said.

    But David Goldwyn, an Obama-era State Department special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said he doubted Pompeo would become prescriptive about the kinds of energy solutions it helps allies gain access to.

    Goldwyn, who had a hand in creating the Bureau of Energy Resources under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said Pompeo would need that office's technical, diplomatic and policy expertise.

    "The reason the energy bureau was created ... was that the U.S. interest in the energy security of friends and allies or the need to manage our own security by using energy as a foreign policy tool is now an endemic part of our foreign policy," Goldwyn said.

    The answer to questions like how to disincentivize the purchase of Iranian oil, contain Russian energy dominance in Europe or respond to Venezuela's decline as a petroleum producer should not be dictated by ideology, he said.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080029
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Macron: The US Will Come Back to the Paris Climate Pact

    Apr 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Timothy Cama

    French President Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday predicted that the United States will come back to the Paris climate change agreement.

    Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Macron said climate change is a long-term problem that won’t go away, and that gives him confidence the United States will either stay in the agreement or come back if it does leave.

    “I’m sure, one day, the United States will come back and join the Paris agreement. And I’m sure we can work together to fulfill with you the ambitions of the global compact on the environment,” Macron told the House and Senate, eliciting some cheers from within the House chamber.

    President Trump announced in June 2017 that he would pull the United States out of the pact that was reached in 2015 in France’s capital with the help of the Obama administration. The exit of the nonbinding accord cannot take effect until 2020 at the earliest, and a future president could quickly re-join.

    Macron spoke extensively about climate change and the environment in his speech. But he did not seek to consternate Trump or the United States and instead chose to highlight the urgency of the issue.

    Most of his statements brought cheers from at least some lawmakers, though Republicans did not applaud for every line.

    “I believe in building a better future for our children, which requires offering them a planet that is still habitable in 25 years,” he said.

    With unchecked greenhouse gas emissions, plunging biodiversity and increasing ocean pollution, “we are killing our planet,” Macron remarked.

    “Let us face it: there is no Planet B.”

    Macron also sought to appeal to American interests on environmental concerns.

    “On this issue, it may happen we have disagreements between the United States and France. It may happen, like in all families. But that’s, for me, a short-term disagreement. In the long run, we will have to face the same realities, and we’re just citizens of the same planet,” he said.

    “Let us work together in order to make our planet great again, and create new jobs and new opportunities, ones of guarding our earth,” Macron continued, borrowing from Trump’s presidential campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/384801-macron-the-us-will-come-back-to-the-paris-climate-pact
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Macron Gently Pressures Trump on Paris Accord

    Apr 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

    By Jean Chemnick

    French President Emmanuel Macron walked a tightrope yesterday by touting his country's enduring relationship with the United States while also breaking with President Trump on climate change.

    Standing next to Trump, Macron told reporters that closed-door sessions on Syria and other global issues also touched on climate change.

    "And here, also, we know where we stand," he said, adding that "France will continue to work on major pieces," including the Paris Agreement.

    "But I think I can say that our economic — our businesses, our researchers can continue to work on — can create solutions in the field," Macron said. "And we are both attached to that."

    Macron's delegation included two of the 13 climate researchers whom he poached from U.S. institutions late last year under the banner "Make Our Planet Great Again." Macron promised them a supportive country in which to do research after Trump announced a departure from the Paris Agreement and stocked his Cabinet with climate science disbelievers.

    Macron has used his first year in office to advance the objectives of the Paris Agreement. He spoke strongly against Trump's decision in June to leave the climate deal, hosted a summit on its second anniversary in December and helped champion a deal on shipping emissions earlier this month.

    Trump reportedly likes Macron, and the French leader is considered better positioned than most to make inroads with the controversial U.S. leader.

    "I doubt that it will get us back in the Paris Agreement, but it certainly can't hurt," said Angela Anderson, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

    She called it a "pretty amazing juxtaposition" that Macron brought U.S. researchers to Washington with him as Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, signed an order to prevent some scientific studies from being used in the crafting of environmental regulations.

    The French president hopes to sway Trump not to abandon the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, and negotiations are underway on a supplemental agreement that Europeans hope will keep Trump from walking away on May 12. Trump derided the underlying deal yesterday as "insane" but at least hinted that he and the Europeans were making progress.

    Experts also thought progress might be possible on smaller pieces of the climate-and-energy puzzle, like natural gas exports, reduced-carbon coal, and a global agreement on refrigerants and coolants. And Macron's own determination to show something to a skeptical French public for his efforts to forge a relationship with the unpopular Trump might give him leverage, they said.

    "I think that Macron's going to want to get something on climate, no matter how tangential," said Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser at the Clinton White House.

    There was no indication yesterday of any accord in the climate and energy realm, but David Livingston, deputy director of climate and advanced energy at the Atlantic Council, said re-engaging the United States was always "a multilevel game."

    "It's nonetheless useful for Trump to have reiterated again and again, from multiple different partners and allies, that both the world and the United States are stronger with the U.S. inside the Paris Agreement," he said.

    Trump took an aggressive posture in his own remarks yesterday, demanding that wealthy Middle Eastern countries devote more troops and treasure to combating extremists in their own region and attributing China's cooperation on North Korea in part to his hard line with that country on trade.

    Macron, for his part, said that U.S.-French trade is "balanced," contradicting Trump's usual line that European trade negotiators have outmaneuvered the United States under past presidents.

    Macron said in March that the European Union should not enter into new trade deals with nations that do not honor the Paris Agreement. He has been one of the strongest voices in Europe for the eventual introduction of trade barriers with countries that shirk their climate duties.

    But David Levai, senior research fellow for climate diplomacy and governance with the French environmental nonprofit Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, said that Macron is aware of how that message would play with Trump on a visit like this.

    The strategy instead, Levai said, was, "We have a number of disagreements, but let's try to focus on things that we can do together noting those disagreements, and those steps will bring us closer."

    That's essentially the message Macron brought to Washington.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/04/25/stories/1060080023
    

    Return to headline | Return to top