Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 15/05/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA, White House Apparently Buried an HHS Report on Dangerous Toxins Near U.S. Military Bases
May 15, 2018 | The Week Magazine
By Peter Weber
On Jan. 30, a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staffer forwarded an email from another White House official warning that a Health and Human Services Department (HHS) study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis "is going to be extremely painful" to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Pentagon, and the EPA and Defense Department can't seem to get the HHS agency "to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be," Politico reported Monday, citing documents released to the Union of Concerned Scientists under a Freedom of Information Act request. -
Pruitt's 24/7 Security Requested Over Fears of Trump Policy Backlash
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
A Trump administration official originally requested and justified a round-the-clock security detail for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on fears that President Trump’s expected policy changes would create significant public backlash. -
Trump Moves to Kill Lawsuit Over 2-for-1 Order, Again
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration is once again trying to quash litigation challenging the president's executive order requiring federal agencies to scrap two regulations for every new one created. -
Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers: A Ban is the Only Health-Protective Path Forward
May 15, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last week, EPA signaled it will advance a delayed rule regulating consumer and worker use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers. -
EPA Poised to Keep Toxics Limits for Coated Wood Industry
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Following the first review in 15 years, EPA is proposing to leave hazardous pollutant standards for manufacturers of flooring, paneling and other coated wood building products unchanged. -
Consensus on Industry Association Brexit Concerns
May 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Representatives of industry associations, speaking at last month's Chemical Watch Brexit conference,broadly agreed on what their members want out of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. -
Experts Support Action on PFASs in Paper, Board FCMs
May 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
International experts at a Nordic workshop have supported the banning or restricting of PFASs in paper and board food contact materials (FCMs), when presented with a number of regulatory risk management options. -
High Oil Prices Threaten Trump Tax Cuts, Fuel Decision Takes Center Stage
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John W. Handy and Michael Johnson
Iran and the status of international sanctions on the country’s oil exports are one of the clearest indicators of the intrinsic links between U.S. oil dependence and foreign policy. -
Perry Hints Trump May Thwart States from Blocking Oil, Gas Pipelines
May 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry told a House panel last week that he considers oil and natural gas pipelines to be an integral part of the nation's energy security, and hinted that the Trump administration could cite national security as a means to thwart states trying to block such pipelines from being built. -
Trump Mulls New Global Institution to Promote Fossil Fuels
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Zack Colman
The Trump administration is considering forming "a new, central institution" to advocate for natural gas and coal technology and exports, according to a document E&E News obtained from an administration source. -
EPA Sends SO2 Proposal to White House for Review
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Up against a court-ordered deadline, EPA has sent a proposed rule related to its primary sulfur dioxide standard to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. -
Column: Smart Investment in Infrastructure Needed
May 15, 2018 | Detroit News
By Dan Papineau
There’s no denying Michigan’s core infrastructure is in desperate need of investment. -
Senate Democrats Question Climate Omissions in DOD Report
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of 21 Senate Democrats is questioning reports that the Defense Department (DOD) removed several climate change-related threats from a recent report on military installation vulnerabilities, saying the changes appear to have occurred because the information did not fit the Trump administration's “political narrative.” -
London May Implement 'Car-Free' Days to Combat Pollution: Report
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
London officials are reportedly considering implementing citywide “car-free” days in an effort to combat air pollution.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
May 15, 2018 | The Week Magazine
By Peter Weber
On Jan. 30, a federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staffer forwarded an email from another White House official warning that a Health and Human Services Department (HHS) study on a nationwide water-contamination crisis "is going to be extremely painful" to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Pentagon, and the EPA and Defense Department can't seem to get the HHS agency "to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be," Politico reported Monday, citing documents released to the Union of Concerned Scientists under a Freedom of Information Act request.
EPA officials including Administrator Scott Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, and EPA chemical safety chief Nancy Beck got involved and reached out to their HHS counterparts, Politico said. Beck, who worked for the George W. Bush administration and left the Obama administration in 2012 to become a lobbyist for the American Chemical Association, suggested bumping the report up to an interagency review led by the OMB. The report is still unpublished and HHS says it has no plans to release it.
The report, from the HHS's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), found that humans are more at risk from low levels of chemicals known as PFOA and PFOS than previously thought — 12 parts per trillion (or roughly 12 grains of sand in an Olympic-size pool) of the chemicals may be dangerous, versus 70 ppt in current advisories.
The risk is especially high near military bases; the Pentagon said in March that water tested near 126 U.S. military facilities found levels of PFOA and PFOS higher than current safety guidelines. Jackson told Politico that the EPA was just helping "ensure that the federal government is responding in a uniform way to our local, state, and congressional constituents and partners." Yogin Kothari with the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Beck's suggestion "extremely troubling because it appears as though the White House is trying to interfere in a science-based risk assessment."
http://theweek.com/speedreads/773260/epa-white-house-apparently-buried-hhs-report-dangerous-toxins-near-military-bases
-
Pruitt's 24/7 Security Requested Over Fears of Trump Policy Backlash
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Miranda Green
A Trump administration official originally requested and justified a round-the-clock security detail for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on fears that President Trump’s expected policy changes would create significant public backlash.
Internal EPA emails obtained by The Hill show that Don Benton, who led the EPA’s “beachhead” team of initial political appointees after Trump’s inauguration, requested 24/7 security for “at least” Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first week of work, fearing Trump’s initial actions related to the EPA were “likely to stir up a hornet's nest.”
“I have requested 24/7 protection for the new administrator for the first week at least and then evaluate from there. There will be several Executive Orders signed when he is sworn in that will likely stir the hornet’s nest,” Benton wrote in an email dated Feb. 11, 2017, to James Caldwell, a security official at the EPA, indicating that he had already made the request.
The email provides a window into how Pruitt came to be the first EPA head in history with a full-time security detail. Early Monday, the EPA’s inspector general confirmed in a letter that Pruitt had requested constant security before he even came to the agency, and he had the guards on his first day, despite recent statements Pruitt made that his expensive security was deemed necessary due to threats he received while working there.
Weeks after Pruitt was sworn in, Trump issued an executive order formally asking him to consider repealing the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule, which redefined the EPA's authority over small waterways. Pruitt has since proposed repealing it.
Later, in March, Trump signed a wide-ranging executive order on energy and environmental regulations. Its instructions included asking the EPA to reconsider the Clean Power Plan, which limited carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and another regulation limiting methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling.
Benton left the EPA in April 2017, and Trump tapped him to lead the Selective Service System, the federal agency that maintains the database for a potential military draft.
Benton further justified his security request in the email exchange by citing a “security issue in the Atlanta office” the previous week and a woman who allegedly threatened former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy but did not show up for a court date and was, according to Benton, “at large in DC.”
“It is best to be on the safe side,” Benton wrote.
Administration officials also discussed how best to provide the needed officers for a full-time detail.
In an email dated Feb. 9, Charles Cavanaugh, from the EPA’s criminal enforcement office, asked Eric Weese, then the head of the administrator’s security detail, what the costs would be for 24/7 coverage.
Weese responded that it was likely that everything — costs and manpower — would need to be doubled, resulting in a 16-person detail.
He suggested that the EPA would have to pull criminal investigators to pick up security shifts while the agency worked on hiring more staff, which he predicted would be “a major disruption” to the criminal division for the Mid-Atlantic region.
The security team has so far cost taxpayers an estimated $3 million.
Weese reportedly was later demoted to a more general position in the agency’s criminal investigation division after he resisted a request by Pruitt to use the emergency siren on his vehicle when he wanted to beat traffic. Pruitt denied to House lawmakers last month that any employee faced retaliation for questioning his requests.
The EPA declined to comment.
Pruitt has been plagued for months by a series of controversies related to his expenses and ethics. He's been chastised for costs associated with his security detail and first-class travel and received criticism for hefty staff salary raises and the commission of a $43,000 soundproof booth in his office.
He has also been sharply criticized for leasing a Capitol Hill condominium from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist for $50 a night.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/387691-pruitts-24-7-security-requested-over-fears-of-trump-policy-backlash
-
Trump Moves to Kill Lawsuit Over 2-for-1 Order, Again
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The Trump administration is once again trying to quash litigation challenging the president's executive order requiring federal agencies to scrap two regulations for every new one created.
Government attorneys at the Justice Department yesterday moved to dismiss an amended complaint filed by environmentalists, communication workers and a watchdog group.
President Trump finalized the order at issue in January 2017. Along with requiring agencies to eliminate two rules for every new one, the order established a regulatory budget for how much agencies can spend on new rules each year.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen and Communications Workers of America filed suit, arguing the order was illegal in part because it attempted to override laws passed by Congress that may require rulemaking.
But Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in February dismissed the claims, finding that the groups didn't have legal standing to sue because they hadn't shown they would suffer harms from agency actions pursuant to the order (Greenwire, Feb. 26).
The judge, however, gave the groups 30 days to file an amended complaint that addressed the legal standing question.
In April, the groups tried to revive the case by laying out delays in specific rules that they said were prompted by the executive order.
They pointed, for example, to the Energy Department's decision to delay certain energy efficiency rules, including for commercial water-heating equipment (Greenwire, April 5).
But the administration argues in its new motion to dismiss that the groups still haven't established they have standing to bring the lawsuit.
The groups haven't demonstrated that federal agencies actually intended to issue a rule on a subject, that the rule has been delayed by the order and that the delay caused harm, according to the government motion.
"Plaintiffs continue to speculate about the potential for increased risk to their members from various regulations that may be delayed by the order," wrote the administration lawyers.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081747
-
Methylene Chloride in Paint Strippers: A Ban is the Only Health-Protective Path Forward
May 15, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last week, EPA signaled it will advance a delayed rule regulating consumer and worker use of methylene chloride-based paint strippers. Numerous details of EPA’s announcement remain to be filled in, and we caution EPA to avoid approaches short of the ban that was proposed.
The record for EPA’s proposed ban is clear: Allowing such products to stay on the market based on reliance on such factors as increased labeling, protective equipment, or training requirements simply will not protect the public’s or workers’ health.
Sadly, the companies that make the chemical and paint strippers containing it are already seeking to resurrect those old arguments.
Those companies once again are pointing to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) update earlier this year of its 1987 policy statement warning consumers of acute hazards posed by certain methylene chloride-containing household products, including paint strippers.
CPSC updated its policy by providing non-binding guidancerecommending additional labeling. It did so in response to a petition from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Association (HSIA), which has expressly stated that it petitioned CPSC for a new label in an effort to stymie finalization of EPA’s proposal to ban such uses of methylene chloride.
A recent Inside EPA article [subscription required] cites industry sources suggesting that the CPSC guidance might give EPA an alternative to banning such products. The article asserts that the guidance “could provide fodder for EPA to weaken the Obama-era proposed ban.”
To set the record straight: CPSC itself has repeatedly indicated that its guidance in no way eliminates or reduces the need for EPA to finalize its proposed ban on methylene chloride in paint and coating removal products: When issuing its guidance, CPSC clearly stated that the guidance “would not replace the EPA’s rulemaking and instead, would be an interim measure until the EPA may issue a regulation.” (emphasis added). CPSC reiterated this in the guidance itself: “[b]y updating the 1987 Statement, we do not suggest that labeling will address all hazards EPA identified in its proposed rulemaking.”
Last year, in preparing the Commission to consider the HSIA petition, CPSC staff stated: “The Commission is aware of activities being undertaken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, California’s Department for Toxic Substances Control, and ASTM International concerning certain products containing DCM, and staff supports their efforts to address the risks associated with DCM-containing products.” (emphasis added)
The CPSC guidance falls far short of what is needed for several additional reasons:First, the guidance is not legally binding.Second, CPSC only has authority over consumers, not workers; yet the latter is the subpopulation most often reported to be harmed through use of methylene chloride-containing paint and coating removal products. In a June 2016 letter to EPA, CPSC supported EPA’s efforts to use TSCA to promulgate a ban: “Because TSCA gives EPA the ability to reach both occupational and consumer uses, we recognize that EPA may address risks associated with these chemicals in a more cohesive and coordinated manner given that CPSC lacks authority to address occupational hazards.”Third, labeling is of extremely limited efficacy in controlling exposure. CPSC’s guidance recognizes the limits of labeling: “Warnings research demonstrates that even small inconveniences to the consumer can have a substantial negative effect on behavioral compliance with a warning.” EPA’s proposed ban clearly indicated and extensively documented that labeling would be insufficient to mitigate the risks posed by these uses of methylene chloride to consumers and workers.
EDF is encouraged by EPA’s statement last week that it has decided move forward to finalize its proposed rule banning methylene chloride in paint stripping products. We urge EPA to promptly finalize its ban – which is the only way to adequately protect public and worker health.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/05/15/methylene-chloride-in-paint-strippers-a-ban-is-the-only-health-protective-path-forward/
-
EPA Poised to Keep Toxics Limits for Coated Wood Industry
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Following the first review in 15 years, EPA is proposing to leave hazardous pollutant standards for manufacturers of flooring, paneling and other coated wood building products unchanged.
"We found risks due to emissions of air toxics to be acceptable from this source category and determined that the current NESHAP [National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants] provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health," the agency wrote in a draft rule set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
EPA staffers also found no new "cost-effective" technologies to reduce releases of lead, formaldehyde and other pollutants from the industry, according to the draft.
The proposed rule would, however, include a new emissions testing requirement and order manufacturers to file compliance reports electronically. In a now-routine move, the agency is also seeking to drop exemptions for excess emissions resulting from startups, shutdowns and malfunctions after a 2008 appellate court ruled that such waivers are illegal.
For the 55 manufacturing plants covered by the regulations in the United States, added compliance costs are expected to be a tiny fraction of yearly sales revenue, according to the draft. In all, those plants annually emit about 260 tons of hazardous pollutants, down by about 98 percent since EPA adopted the original thresholds for the industry in 2003, the proposal indicates.
Under the Clean Air Act, the agency was supposed to have conducted a follow-up review by 2011 to account both for technical advances in pollution controls and fresh research into individual pollutants' health effects that would indicate whether any "residual risk" remains.
The agency, however, has failed to meet that eight-year timetable for many industrial sources of air toxics, leading to a flurry of lawsuits from environmental groups to force compliance.
The review for makers of coated wood products is one of 13 ordered last year by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to one such suit brought by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and three other organizations.
Cooper's order requires EPA to complete seven of the past-due reviews by the end of this year, while the other six must follow by June 2020 (E&E News PM, March 23, 2017). Cooper left it up to EPA officials to decide on the exact order.
The proposed rule will carry a 45-day public comment period when published in the Federal Register. A public hearing will be held if requested within five days.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081755
-
Consensus on Industry Association Brexit Concerns
May 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Representatives of industry associations, speaking at last month's Chemical Watch Brexit conference,broadly agreed on what their members want out of the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
During a panel session, they said they welcomed the greater certainty arising from the recently agreed transition deal, but are aware multiple scenarios remain on the table, including a no-deal Brexit.
And, as reported in this month's Global Business Briefing, panel members said downstream associations, whose members are often integrated into very complex supply chains, are mostly concerned about:tariff-free, frictionless trade;access to skills; andregulatory cooperation.
They all want the UK to remain aligned with the EU27 on chemical law.
"Any disruption to that supply chain disrupts our ability to export to the rest of the world," said Jeegar Kakkad, chief economist and director of policy at the ADS Group – a UK association for the aerospace, defence, security and space sectors.
Speaking for the British Coatings Federation, Ellen Daniels said that while only 20% of members said they would relocate from the UK without single market access, 61% said supply chain proximity is important to them and their top seven trading partners are all in the EU.
And Erwin Annys, director of REACH and chemicals policy at Cefic, stressed the need for creative thinking in order to reach the mainstream press and wield real influence. Brexit, he warned, will be decided at levels far above Echa.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66949/consensus-on-industry-association-brexit-concerns
-
Experts Support Action on PFASs in Paper, Board FCMs
May 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
International experts at a Nordic workshop have supported the banning or restricting of PFASs in paper and board food contact materials (FCMs), when presented with a number of regulatory risk management options.
PFASs, per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances, are used in FCMs to make packaging water and grease repellent. But there is evidence that they can be harmful to human health and the environment, in particular through their potential to persist over long periods.
The workshop in Copenhagen was run by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration and National Food Institute (DTU Food), with funding from the Nordic Council of Ministers. Its outputs were published in a report last month.
The organisers presented participants with three scenarios for managing the risks associated with PFASs in paper and board FCMs:a total ban or restriction of PFASs;restriction of groups of PFASs, such as perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) or perfluorinated alkyl sulfonate acids (PFSAs), and their precursors; orrestriction of individual chemicals.
The report says that, generally, the participants of the workshop expressed most support for the first scenario. Under this it would be possible for producers to apply for an exemption for a PFAS. If successful, the substance would then be added to a positive list of approved PFASs. For each entry, the list would set either a specific migration limit or a limit on the amount of the substance in the FCM.
The FCM Framework Regulation provides rules on use of the materials in the EU. However, only some types – such as those containing plastic – are covered by specific, harmonised European legislation; paper and board FCMs are not among these. This means companies using the materials need only follow the general rules in the framework Regulation, and national provisions in individual member states.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66867/experts-support-action-on-pfass-in-paper-board-fcms
-
High Oil Prices Threaten Trump Tax Cuts, Fuel Decision Takes Center Stage
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By John W. Handy and Michael Johnson
Iran and the status of international sanctions on the country’s oil exports are one of the clearest indicators of the intrinsic links between U.S. oil dependence and foreign policy. Oil prices have already risen 67 percent in the last 11 months, to over $70 per barrel, due to nearly two years of coordinated cuts by OPEC and Russia, and rising geopolitical risk.
As we enter summer driving season, increased gasoline prices threaten to eliminate the take-home benefits of the president’s tax cut. Now policymakers must address both the supply- and demand-side solutions. These include increased domestic production and maintaining fuel economy standards to help reduce our reliance on oil.
Now that the EPA has formally announced a decision to revisit the standards completed in the final days of the Obama administration for vehicle model years 2022–2025, efforts have begun in earnest to make a decision about the future of these rules. Those decisions would impact both the health of our auto industry and our long-term economic competitiveness. As we witness growing uncertainty in the Middle East and experience the impact of rising prices at the pump, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must grasp this opportunity to protect American businesses and consumers by optimizing, not weakening, fuel economy standards.
The U.S. consumes one-fifth of daily global supply and has a transportation system that is 92 percent dependent on oil, leaving our economy exposed on both the supply and demand side to an opaque, volatile, and unfree oil market. The most recent example was in 2014 when Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC members maintained high production levels in response to U.S. shale. The result was debilitating for the domestic energy industry: The price of oil fell from $140 per barrel in June 2014 to $26 in February 2016, pushing over 220 oil companies into bankruptcy and taking 150,000 jobs with them. But we are even more exposed when oil prices rise: Every 1 cent increase in gasoline prices defers $1-2 billion in consumer spending, and every economic recession has been preceded by or concurrent to an oil price spike.
Since they were introduced in response to the 1973 oil embargo, fuel economy standards are the single most impactful policy we have in protecting ourselves from oil price volatility—we cannot achieve President Trump’s goal of “energy dominance” without them. According to the EIA’s latest numbers, The U.S. achieves net oil exports of around 1.45 million barrels per day in 2022. If we maintain current standards, by 2030 we will export nearly 4.2 mbd—without maintaining the current 2025 targets that number is only 1.47 mbd.
To bridge the existing divides, the EPA should work to maintain a rigorous, unified standard, but also to account for the innovation that has taken place since the current rules were established in 2012. Deploying existing advanced driver assistance technology, which smooths driving patterns and prevents crashes that result in congestion and fuel waste, has upper bound potential fuel savings of 18 to 25 percent. Just as urgently, these same existing technologies would save 9,900 lives every year if equipped on every car. EPA and NHTSA must also encourage alternative fuel technologies that can mitigate oil’s monopoly as a transportation fuel by preserving credit multipliers that apply to electric vehicles, and incorporate other advanced vehicle technologies.
An oil supply disruption anywhere impacts prices everywhere. Regulators cannot ignore our persistent energy security risks, and if the U.S. is to insulate itself from global oil price volatility, Administrator Pruitt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the auto industry and California must lean forward as the United States pursues “energy dominance.” This important goal cannot be achieved without a strong, unified national fuel economy standard—and existing technology provides a promising pathway to achieve it.
General John W. Handy, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), and Michael Johnson, President of Parsons Infrastructure. Both are members of Securing America’s Future Energy’s (SAFE) Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC). The ESLC brings together some of America’s most prominent business and military leaders to support a comprehensive, long-term policy to reduce U.S. oil dependence and improve energy security.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/387737-high-oil-prices-threaten-trump-tax-cuts-fuel-decision
-
Perry Hints Trump May Thwart States from Blocking Oil, Gas Pipelines
May 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Rick Perry told a House panel last week that he considers oil and natural gas pipelines to be an integral part of the nation's energy security, and hinted that the Trump administration could cite national security as a means to thwart states trying to block such pipelines from being built.
During a House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing last Wednesday, Perry said he would be "hard pressed" to not say that states play an important role in the development of energy infrastructure. But he questioned whether states ultimately have the right to block interstate pipelines.
Blocking pipelines has "a national security implication or an economic implication on individuals," Perry said. "That's a whole nother issue, [but] the fight there will be the states' sovereign ability to make a decision versus the national security of this country."
Although Perry did not say whether the Trump administration would ultimately issue an executive order (EO) to rein in states such as New Jersey and New York that are opposed to pipelines, Trump signed an EO calling for expedited permitting of such projects last August. Last month, the DOE was among 12 federal agencies that agreed to follow expedited permitting procedures, with timetables designed to complete the reviews within two years.
Perry used the same hearing to tell the panel that the administration may consider use of a law enacted during the Korean War, rather than Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, to address the issues he brought up in a controversial notice of proposed rulemaking that was ultimately rejected by FERC and derided by some in the oil and gas industry as a bailout for uneconomic coal and nuclear generators.
Regulators in New York have refused to issue a water quality certificate for the Constitution Pipeline, despite approvals by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The state has also blocked National Fuel Gas Co.'s Northern Access expansion and Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC's Valley Lateral.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114382-perry-hints-trump-may-thwart-states-from-blocking-oil-gas-pipelines
-
Trump Mulls New Global Institution to Promote Fossil Fuels
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Zack Colman
The Trump administration is considering forming "a new, central institution" to advocate for natural gas and coal technology and exports, according to a document E&E News obtained from an administration source.
The draft talking points on a "Clean and Advanced Fossil Fuel Alliance," which were labeled pre-decisional, build on what had to this point been described as a loose affiliation of countries the United States is courting.
The idea arose in response to a coalition of nations that pledged to phase out coal-fired power at last year's U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany (E&E News PM, Dec. 11, 2017).
Scientists, policymakers, industries and innovators would participate in the envisioned institution to "explore the vast potential of clean and advanced fossil fuels, specifically clean coal and natural gas," according to the document.
The need is described as "particularly important as many nations seek aggressive energy policies, which call for the decreased reliance on traditional baseload capacity" through "narrowly focused and often unrealistic policies within international energy fora."
The source said agency chiefs were meeting at the White House today in part to discuss the proposal. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
George David Banks, President Trump's former international energy and climate aide, said deliberations at the Group of 20 were also a catalyst. He said French President Emmanuel Macron's "head essentially exploded" over including language that read the U.S. would help countries "access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently."
"That sent us a very clear signal that if we were to have a rational discussion about energy and climate discussion, we were going to have to create a new platform," said Banks, who noted that platform didn't necessarily need to be a new, standing institution or organization.
Trump administration officials, including Banks, last November in Bonn contended other nations too easily disregarded the role fossil fuels would play in the world's energy mix for decades.
The U.S. received criticism for hosting an event there with coal and natural gas advocates, drawing protests from activists who said promoting fossil fuels was inconsistent with addressing climate change. U.S. officials argued renewable energy had plenty of backers at the conference.
"I think it's fair to say that [the Trump administration's] view of renewables is that it's emphasized and has been well pushed by the United States for the last eight or 10 years," said Fred Hutchison, president of natural gas group LNG Allies.
Trump has advanced an "energy dominance" agenda that seeks to harness U.S. natural resources such as coal and natural gas for economic and geopolitical gains. The administration has said energy exports have translated into more jobs and greater national and energy security for the U.S. and its allies.
As such, the document posits that international institutions "should be celebrating all forms of energy and seek to constantly improve on them all." It lamented the lack of discussion surrounding the role of fossil fuels at the International Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Ministerial, G-7 and G-20, adding, "We believe it's reasonable to expect this to continue under the Canadian presidency of the G7."
"Such actions only alienate those countries seeking to utilize cheaper, more reliable and abundant sources of energy to ensure energy access and meet their individual environmental goals," the document said.
Hutchinson, whose group helps find markets for U.S. liquefied natural gas exports, isn't entirely sure a White House effort will be to that fuel's advantage if it means distorting energy markets that have favored natural gas. That said, he agreed that fossil fuels will continue to be a reality in other countries, noting buyers in countries such as India are likely to alternate between using coal and importing natural gas because they are "incredibly price sensitive."
"We just can't put our heads in the sand and think we can get from where we are today and where we all want to be a generation or two down the line in how we limit carbon from all sources," he said. "To the extent that [the alliance] focuses on things such as technology enhancements, that's a good thing."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081767
-
EPA Sends SO2 Proposal to White House for Review
May 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Up against a court-ordered deadline, EPA has sent a proposed rule related to its primary sulfur dioxide standard to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
The agency forwarded the draft to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs yesterday, according to the Reginfo.gov website.
While the entry doesn't spell out the proposal's content, EPA air office staffers see no reason to change the existing hourly standard of 75 parts per billion, according to an assessmentreleased last week.
That standard was set in 2010. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to review the thresholds for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and five other "criteria" pollutants every five years to ensure they are still adequate in light of research into their public health and ecological effects. In practice, the agency rarely, if ever, meets that deadline.
Under a settlement reached last year to a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must now sign the proposed SO2 rule by May 25, with the final version following by Jan. 28, 2019 (Greenwire, May 1, 2017).
In keeping with a timetable set by the same settlement, EPA last month delivered a final rule leaving its primary standards for nitrogen dioxide unchanged (Greenwire, April 17).
SO2, used as a stand-in for the broader class of sulfur oxides, is produced mainly by coal-fired power plants. It is linked to a variety of heart and lung ailments; the primary ambient air quality standard is intended to protect public health.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081765
-
Column: Smart Investment in Infrastructure Needed
May 15, 2018 | Detroit News
By Dan Papineau
There’s no denying Michigan’s core infrastructure is in desperate need of investment. But rather than working to upgrade and maintain these aging systems in a fiscally responsible way, some local governments are artificially inflating the cost of projects in their jurisdictions. This needs to stop.
From roads and bridges to water and sewer lines, experts estimate that Michigan needs to invest $4 billion per year to improve and update Michigan’s infrastructure and spend over $1 billion of that on fixing water lines.
Rather than ensuring that money is spent wisely, some local governments have passed closed competition ordinances which only allow municipal water projects to be done with iron pipe, slamming the door on other cost-effective and even superior materials.
For decades, Michigan’s water infrastructure has consisted exclusively of one type of material: ductile iron. Technology has advanced and new piping materials are available that are cheaper and, in some circumstances, better than what has been used previously. Some local units of government even passed ordinances that require these pipes to be bought from specific manufacturers.
The fact is that cities and townships with closed competition ordinances have higher costs than ones with open competition by about 30 percent. The average cost to replace 12-inch water pipes in a closed system is $84 per foot. With open competition, the average cost is $63. This is a savings of more than $100,000 per mile. Without raising taxes by one penny, the cost to taxpayers to provide them with the water infrastructure they deserve could be reduced by $300 million.
Engineers should have the freedom to choose the best material for the project. But not allowing an engineer to consider more cost-effective approaches is irresponsible.
An example of the benefits of open competition and innovation can be found in the city of Burton, Michigan. When Burton was looking for ways to replace 19 miles of 90-year-old ductile iron pipe, it got creative and looked to innovative options to keep costs down without sacrificing quality. When an engineer suggested alternative pipe material for their project that could save the city millions of dollars, the mayor of Burton’s interest piqued. Unfortunately, Burton was in Genesee County, which had a closed competition ordinance requiring all water infrastructure products to use only ductile iron pipe.
This was quite a surprise to the mayor of Burton, the city’s engineer, and residents. Even though it took two years and considerable effort, the city of Burton received a waiver from the county and was able to proceed with its project and save the city’s taxpayers millions of dollars.
Local units of government with ordinances prohibiting competition need to eliminate these barriers to investment. Other states and countries have embraced creative, yet responsible, solutions to their infrastructure challenges. So should Michigan.
Dan Papineau is director of tax policy for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2018/05/14/smart-investment-infrastructure-needed-closed-competition/34906339/
-
Senate Democrats Question Climate Omissions in DOD Report
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of 21 Senate Democrats is questioning reports that the Defense Department (DOD) removed several climate change-related threats from a recent report on military installation vulnerabilities, saying the changes appear to have occurred because the information did not fit the Trump administration's “political narrative.”
The Democrats' concerns are outlined in a May 11 letter to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, with the senators saying they are concerned with a recent Washington Post report that DOD removed the climate-related information from its Screening Level Vulnerability Assessment Survey.
The Post reported that the most recent version of the study omitted survey results from military installations about the impacts of sea level rise, as well as findings about how climate change is affecting “the operating environment in the Arctic and the potential risks to DOD's” training and testing activities in the area.
“These are substantive, not stylistic, changes -- and it is not the way we expect DOD to conduct business,” the Democrats' letter says.
Signing onto the letter are Sens. Brian Schatz (HI), Jack Reed (RI), Richard Durbin (IL), Tina Smith (MN), Ed Markey (MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Martin Heinrich (NM), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Cory Booker (NJ), Bill Nelson (FL), Patty Murray (WA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR), Tom Carper (DE), Bernie Sanders (VT), Mazie Hirono (HI), Michael Bennet (CO), Gary Peters (MI) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH).
The lawmakers ask Mattis to provide a prior draft version of the report from December 2016, and to determine what changes were made in the January version, “who specifically made those changes, and why.” They seek a response no later than May 18.
The letter highlights a tension within the Trump administration's national security team regarding climate risks. Mattis and others have acknowledged the risks that climate change poses to various national security efforts, and a recent report from the intelligence community underscored long-standing warnings about a host of threats tied to climate change.
Even so, President Donald Trump's National Security Strategy (NSS) dropped all references to climate change, as did DOD's National Defense Strategy, even as the department continues its climate adaptation work.
Experts criticized the NSS as conflicting with a bipartisan military consensus that officials must plan for and adapt to a host of climate-related damages.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-democrats-question-climate-omissions-dod-report
-
London May Implement 'Car-Free' Days to Combat Pollution: Report
May 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
London officials are reportedly considering implementing citywide “car-free” days in an effort to combat air pollution.
A source at London’s City Hall told The Guardian the officials are scheduled to meet Tuesday about introducing car-free days across the city’s 32 boroughs this year.
The source said officials are mulling “more ambitious plans” to roll out car-free days across the entire capital in 2019.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan has made tackling the city’s toxic air pollution from vehicle emissions and promoting other modes of transportation as one of his main priorities.
“[He] is determined to do everything in his power to protect the health of Londoners and prioritise walking, cycling and public transport and reduce Londoners’ dependency on polluting cars,” a spokeswoman for Khan told the paper.
A joint inquiry by UK lawmakers earlier this year declared the county’s air pollution a “national health emergency.” It is estimated that the air causes 40,000 early deaths per year, 9,000 of which are in London alone.
Several other cities around the globe, including Tel Aviv, Reykjavík, Jakarta and Bath, UK, have held car-free days for years.
The report comes just a few weeks after the UK announced it will implement a ban on plastic straws, the first country to do so, in an effort to cut down on plastic waste.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/387715-london-may-implement-car-free-days-to-combat-pollution-report
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested