Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/21/18
-
Hearing on Geopolitics of U.S. Oil and Gas Competitiveness
May 22, 2018 | The House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade
Location: 2200 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Markup of Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 23, 2018 | The House Appropriations Committee
Location: 2118 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Fast Act Implementation
May 22, 2018 | The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
Location: 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Markup of Interior and Environment Spending Bill
May 22, 2018 | The House Appropriations Committee
Location: 2118 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
How Scott Pruitt's “Transparency” Rule Is Just a Sneaky Ploy to Censor Science
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General shocked Americans with an advisory linking tobacco to lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. The anti-smoking campaign that ensued was one of the biggest public health successes of all time. -
Amid Ethics Scrutiny, EPA’s Pruitt Also Finds His Regulatory Rollbacks Hitting Bumps
May 20, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
In March, as part of Scott Pruitt’s aggressive campaign to roll back federal regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed relaxing standards for storing potentially toxic waste produced by coal-burning power plants. -
Despite Scandals, Observers See Little Chance Of Pruitt's Ouster At EPA
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former EPA officials and others say there is little possibility that Administrator Scott Pruitt's array of ethics and spending scandals will be enough to turn the GOP against him absent a damning investigators' report, but instead see greater odds for Pruitt to leave the agency voluntarily as soon as the end of the year, likely to run for office. -
Pompeo Back on the Hill for First Time Since Confirmation
May 21, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is scheduled to appear before Congress twice next week to discuss his agency's budget, operations and policy priorities. This will be his first appearance since being confirmed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s EPA Doesn’t Want You to Know Chemicals in Teflon Are Poisoning Waterways & Firefighters
May 18, 2018 | Democracy Now!
By Amy Goodman
The Environmental Protection Agency is facing a major new scandal after it worked with the White House to bury an alarming federal study detailing widespread chemical contamination of the nation’s water supply. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Demand Release of Formaldehyde Timeline, Documents
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats are raising concerns that EPA is withholding a review of formaldehyde that allegedly found the chemical causes cancer in some people who are exposed to it. -
Vulnerable Republicans Push for Releasing Health Study
May 21, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
House Republicans in tight re-election races have joined the chorus of lawmakers calling for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to stop withholding a health study on fire-resistant chemicals that has the White House worried. -
13 Bipartisan Lawmakers Demand Pruitt Explain Blocking Chemicals Study
May 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A member of House Republican leadership and a staunch Trump ally are among 13 House lawmakers demanding the immediate release of a chemicals study and an explanation from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt about his staff's efforts to block it. -
Esso Raffinage Scores EU Court Win in Chemical Dispute
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The European Union’s chemical regulator needs more than a “mere letter” to ask a country within the bloc to enforce against an ExxonMobil subsidiary in a REACH chemicals case. -
(ACC Mentioned) Conference on Oil, Gas Development to Be Held in Pennsylvania
May 20, 2018 | Parkersburg News
A conference on oil and gas development in the Marcellus and Utica shales and opportunities with the proposed Appalachian Storage Hub will be held June 7 in Canonsburg, Pa. -
Trump's Checkered History on Building Efficiency
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump's executive order on energy efficiency last week was a stark contrast to his other energy policy moves but a throwback to his days as a real estate mogul, when he took advantage of government energy conservation incentives to cut costs at his properties. -
Andrew Cuomo’s Wind Farm Won’t Fly Without Fracking
May 18, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Robert Bryce
New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo led the cheer squad last month when the Interior Department announced it would begin allowing offshore wind turbines to be built in the shallow waters between New Jersey and Long Island. -
Steyer Gets a Clean Energy Win
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Tom Steyer was in a good mood on Friday. -
Scalise, Bishop Aim for Deal to Open Florida's Gulf Coast Waters for Drilling
May 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) are aiming to strike a deal to allow offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico if the U.S. military and federal government sign off, but it remains uncertain if their effort can convince Florida lawmakers to drop their sharp opposition to oil exploration off the state's coasts. -
Dominion Ruling Signals Climate Rift at Federal Energy Regulator
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
Just weeks after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission launched a sweeping review of its natural gas pipeline policy, its members are again split on the extent to which they should take climate change into account. -
Ferc Shifts Policy to Limit Climate Consideration
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today changed its policy on when it will consider and disclose the upstream and downstream impacts of greenhouse gas emissions connected to natural gas projects it reviews. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants to Rescind Obama Chemical Plant Regulations
May 18, 2018 | Insurance Journal
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took steps on Thursday to roll back and delay Obama-era rules aimed at improving safety at chemical plants, which had come in response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas that killed 15 people. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Rescind, Revise Amendments to RMP Rule
May 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with plans to rescind or modify rules published during the waning days of the Obama administration and which have yet to take effect that are designed to prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities. -
EPA's Plan To Wait On OSHA Could Stall Facility Safety Update For Years
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Rebecca Rainey
The Trump administration plan to scrap the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program and wait for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to advance a similar rulemaking could stall changes to facility oversight for the foreseeable future, as OSHA has shelved plans to update its companion rule. -
Invest and Bring Infrastructure into the 21st Century
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom McGee And Clarence E. Anthony
The infrastructure we depend on every day – from bridges and highways to utilities and broadband – is essential to our cities and the businesses that support them. -
House Committee Unveils Bipartisan WRDA Bill
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today released a water resources authorization bill that is less controversial than expected. -
Al Gore Sees Bipartisanship Returning in Fight on Climate Change
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan and Dina Bass
Climate change used to be a bipartisan issue, and legislators in Congress are getting closer to finding the center on environmental issues again despite the Trump administration’s efforts to halt progress, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said. -
Three Republicans Join Climate Change Caucus
May 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Three House Republicans have joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers dedicated to addressing the threat posed by climate change. -
Trump Order Rescinds Carbon Emissions Limits for Agencies
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Federal agencies are no longer required to meet greenhouse gas emission targets set by the Obama administration, according to a White House executive order. -
Relief From Emissions Limits Could Mean More Agency Spending
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith and Rebecca Kern
Federal agencies no longer have to meet comprehensive Obama-era greenhouse gas, energy conservation, and renewable electricity targets—and that could mean fewer dollars saved, efficiency advocates said. -
States Aim To Revive 2015 Ozone NAAQS Suit, Fearing No Reconsideration
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States opposed to the Obama EPA's 2015 rule tightening the ozone air standard are asking a federal appeals court to revive currently stayed litigation over the standard, saying the Trump administration appears to have backed off possible plans to reconsider the standard and instead proceed with a regular Clean Air Act-mandated review of the limit. -
Here's How Climate Factors into Trump's Talks with Kim
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The anticipated meeting between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un could put the former real estate tycoon eye to eye with a reviled autocrat who appears more in line with global thinking on one issue: climate change. -
Impatient States Want to Resume Ozone Litigation
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of Republican-leaning states is moving to restart litigation over EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard that has been on hold for more than a year.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Geopolitics of U.S. Oil and Gas Competitiveness
May 22, 2018 | The House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade
Witnesses: Kenneth Medlock, senior director, Center for Energy Studies, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; David Carroll, president and CEO, Gas Technology Institute; Sarah Ladislaw, director and senior fellow, Energy and National Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Samantha Gross, fellow, Cross-Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate, Brookings Institution.
-
Markup of Energy and Water Spending Bill
May 23, 2018 | The House Appropriations Committee
-
Hearing on Fast Act Implementation
May 22, 2018 | The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
Witnesses: Ray Martinez, administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; Dale Krapf, chairman, the Krapf Group; Mike VanMaanen, owner, Eastern Missouri Commission Co., on behalf of the Livestock Marketing Association; Christopher Turner, president, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance; and Jennifer Tierney, board member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, on behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition.
-
Markup of Interior and Environment Spending Bill
May 22, 2018 | The House Appropriations Committee
-
How Scott Pruitt's “Transparency” Rule Is Just a Sneaky Ploy to Censor Science
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
In 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General shocked Americans with an advisory linking tobacco to lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. The anti-smoking campaign that ensued was one of the biggest public health successes of all time.
Too bad that the Trump administration has decided to censor the kinds of scientific studies that prompted the tobacco warning half a century ago – and which more recently helped strengthen air pollution standards and countless other public health advances.
What Scott Pruitt, our reckless U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief, calls a rule against “secret science” is code talk for blocking his agency’s use of peer-reviewed research if data in such studies cannot be made public, even for practical or legitimate reasons.
Research that underpinned American public health policies for decades could soon be – poof – gone. You can see where this is going.Chemical safety studies in jeopardy
The push to censor science comes as the Trump administration is rolling back clean air and water safeguards, and undermining a significant 2016 chemical safety law.
As the proposed EPA science rule took shape, political appointees such as Nancy Beck, formerly with the chemical industry’s lobbying arm and now the top dog in EPA’s toxics office, played a key role shaping its language. As might be expected, the rule could limit what studies are used in activities she oversees, further eroding chemical safety.
Same thing with studies informing clean air and water standards, or research showing how pollution causes cancer.Landmark air pollution study out the door?
A major research project focused on air pollution and mortality – part of the American Cancer Society’s sweeping Cancer Prevention Study – is among those that could be censored by Pruitt’s EPA.
The study covered 500,000 people tracked nationwide between 1982 and 2004. Participants shared intimate details about their personal and medical lives; including economic and marital status, eating habits, alcohol consumption, medication, religion and other private matters.
The research went through many rounds of review and independent re-analysis to confirm its results. It has helped shape air pollution laws in the United States and elsewhere.
And yet, under Pruitt’s new proposed rule, government scientists and policymakers may be unable to use this highly respected study going forward.Impossible demands
The proposed rule says the EPA cannot rely on studies unless all data on which they rely is made public, with possible exemptions for private data. But it doesn’t make clear what data counts as private, or how private medical information will remain protected – and it’s entirely up to Pruitt to make such exemptions.
Getting written consent from study participants to release data would also be a futile chase. Many have since passed away and their family members are very hard to track down.
All this means critical scientific research could be excluded from policy decisions going forward. Pruitt’s EPA knows these realities full well.It doesn’t have to be this way
Science has guided government policy for a long time. Billions in federal funds have been steered over the years to advance research and protect public health. To suddenly change the rules and let politics limit what science we can consider will only take us back to a darker and more ignorant time.
Good leaders look out for our well-being and health. They champion strong research. What they don’t do is engage in double-speak or censor science.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/05/18/how-scott-pruitts-transparency-rule-just-sneaky-ploy-censor-science
-
Amid Ethics Scrutiny, EPA’s Pruitt Also Finds His Regulatory Rollbacks Hitting Bumps
May 20, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
In March, as part of Scott Pruitt’s aggressive campaign to roll back federal regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed relaxing standards for storing potentially toxic waste produced by coal-burning power plants.
EPA officials cited a study indicating that forcing utilities to get rid of unlined coal ash ponds too quickly could strain the electrical grid in several regions of the country.
But when environmental advocates scrutinized the specifics, they discovered a problem: The evidence cited was not established scientific research. Instead, the agency was relying on a four-page document by the utility industry’s trade association, the Edison Electric Institute, which has acknowledged that its conclusions were not “part of or a summary of a larger study.”
Lisa Evans, a lawyer for the group Earthjustice, was among the advocates who seized on that omission, as well as on gaps in technical data and other evidence, to argue that the agency’s action was ill-advised and legally flimsy.
“The record does not support the proposal,” Evans said, noting that the Obama administration’s 2015 requirement on coal ash drew on years of public input and peer-reviewed scientific studies. “I’ve never seen a rule like this, in terms of the thinness of the evidence.”
The coal ash proposal is among the more than half-dozen major EPA moves that have been snagged by procedural and legal problems. The delays threaten to tarnish Pruitt’s image as an effective warrior in President Trump’s battle against federal regulations, a reputation that has so far saved the EPA administrator his job amid an array of investigations into ethical and management lapses.
Earlier this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget sent back a proposal to ease emissions restrictions for refurbished heavy-duty trucks and ordered the agency to analyze the proposal’s economic impact. That move followed a separate OMB request in April that the EPA offer “some analysis” to show that it would actually yield environmental benefits.
The EPA’s own science advisers have called for a review of the “adequacy” of research used not only to justify revoking the truck rule but to reverse fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And over the past year, courts have halted or reversed multiple Pruitt initiatives, in one case forcing the EPA to restore limits on methane leaks from oil and gas operations after a federal appeals panel concluded that their suspension was illegal.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the law firm Bracewell LLP, who headed the EPA’s air and radiation office under President George W. Bush, thinks it is “premature” to evaluate how durable Pruitt’s policy changes will be.
“Early on, before they really had their folks in place, they sent over a lot of rules that didn’t have a lot of technical support,” Holmstead said, adding that in recent months the Senate has confirmed numerous appointees who previously served at the EPA and so are more experienced in working with career staff. “A lot more work is getting done.”
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in a statement that the agency “has been vigorously carrying out President Trump’s regulatory reform agenda, consistent with applicable laws and executive orders.” He noted that last year alone, nearly 40 actions — “including 10 economically significant regulations” — completed their interagency review at the OMB.
But federal records and interviews reveal how much White House officials and staff in other agencies have questioned whether the EPA is meeting the legal requirements necessary to revise Obama-era actions.
The OMB recently posted a document with tracked changes highlighting an extensive rewrite of the agency’s proposal to revoke stricter tailpipe emissions standards for cars and light trucks. Pruitt concluded that higher mileage targets for vehicles to be produced between model years 2022 and 2025 are “not appropriate” because automakers can’t achieve them. Among the red-line changes was an added reference noting that some outside groups, including the Union for Concerned Scientists, believe that the thresholds can be met.
“The rules are coming in undercooked,” said Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate for the watchdog group Public Citizen.
The agency, for example, is drafting a “supplemental rule” to one proposed last year that would change federal oversight over more than half of the nation’s water bodies. It already is being sued over its push to revoke the 2015 “Waters of the U.S.” rule, which affects activities that could drain wetlands and intermittent streams. According to officials, the supplemental language would address White House concerns that the EPA needs to clarify what would actually take the place of the regulation once it is abolished.
Despite such missteps, both critics and supporters of Pruitt agree he has been effective in reshaping the agency through his executive powers. He has issued directives that could ultimately change what sort of data can be used to calculate air-quality standards throughout the country and which studies can factor into public health rules. He scrapped a two-decades-old policy requiring that once a power plant was deemed a “major” polluter, it would always face the most stringent regulations, even if its emissions fell.
The administrator is not letting up, either. His agency’s recent “unified agenda” signals an aggressive deregulatory push in the months ahead.
Holmstead points out that on significant actions, such as reevaluating vehicle fuel-efficiency standards or undoing the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s final decisions matter far more than the initial ones.
“On the big rules, we still haven’t seen the final rules, and that’s where you see the record that has to justify things,” he said.
Yet critics are looking to exploit the early procedural errors as they challenge Pruitt’s efforts in court. More than 70 lawsuits have been filed against the EPA’s regulatory actions, according to an analysis by the office of Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). Of the six cases that have had a full court review, the agency has lost four and delayed arguments in one.
With the proposal on coal ash — intended to give states and utilities more latitude when disposing of the waste — opponents have seized on the fact that there’s no study underpinning the EPA’s position. The current requirement means that most coal ash ponds that pollute nearby groundwater or lie in unsafe areas must close within six months of contamination being detected.
Although the Edison Electric Institute document cited by the EPA draws from a 32-page report on summer electricity demand by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., that analysis does not speak to the issue of coal ash disposal.
Institute official James Roewer, who runs an industry coalition on coal ash, said in an email that the document “is not part of or a summary of a larger study; there isn’t more detailed information that wasn’t provided to EPA. It is simply a high-level review.”
Last month, scores of people assembled in the ballroom of a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., to testify at a public hearing on the proposal. They represented a cross section of Americans — tribal members from Nevada and New Mexico, Girl Scouts from Illinois, a mother from Missouri, a doctor from Indiana. They described how nearby coal ash pits have affected the health of their communities and implored EPA officials not to change course.
“If anything, we should be here making the rules and regulations stronger, not weaker,” said Rachael O’Reilly, 30, of Peoria, Ill., which she said lies downstream from two coal plants. “Why are we here moving backward?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epas-pruitt-praised-for-effectiveness-hits-bumps-in-his-rollback-campaign/2018/05/20/c6ca13d8-53b3-11e8-abd8-265bd07a9859_story.html?utm_term=.3dbb19e1ba59
-
Despite Scandals, Observers See Little Chance Of Pruitt's Ouster At EPA
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former EPA officials and others say there is little possibility that Administrator Scott Pruitt's array of ethics and spending scandals will be enough to turn the GOP against him absent a damning investigators' report, but instead see greater odds for Pruitt to leave the agency voluntarily as soon as the end of the year, likely to run for office.
“Absent some new revelation, he's pretty safe until some of the investigations start either leaking or reporting out their results. . . . It doesn't seem that any of the embarrassment he's causing is affecting Trump,” says one former official.
Rather, that official and other sources say that if Pruitt departs at all it will probably be on his own terms, especially given the long-standing expectation that plans to run for the Senate should Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) retire, or for some other elected office.
But that could change especially if President Donald Trump's opinion of the administrator sours, which “certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility with him,” an industry attorney says.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
Though Democrats have mounted an escalating series of attacks on Pruitt over the course of 2018, most recently featuring Sen. Tom Udall's (D-NM) claim that the EPA administrator admitted to breaking federal law by allowing an aide to house-hunt for him after hours, Trump has continued to voice support for him -- which sources say will keep Republicans from all but the most endangered GOP districts from turning too critical.
“None of them at this stage are willing to break with” Trump, the former official says.For instance, according to a White House pool report, Trump during a May 11 meeting about vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards reiterated his support for Pruitt. "Yes, I do," he said.
While Trump's comments have not been enthusiastic, and come despite numerous reports that his advisers are calling for Pruitt's ouster, sources say the fact that he has repeatedly and explicitly backed the administrator is enough to limit legislators' options in a difficult midterm election season.
That principle in turn seems to have driven Democrats' and environmentalists' recent efforts to drive a wedge between Pruitt and the White House.
For example, Natural Resources Defense Council's Jake Thompson, in a May 18 blog post, highlighted Pruitt's criticisms of Trump during the 2016 campaign.
“I believe that Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama -- and that’s saying a lot,” the post quotes Pruitt as saying in a 2016 interview with a Tulsa, OK, talk radio show.
Separate from Trump's support, however, are Pruitt's ties to the religious right dating back to his days as a state legislator. The industry attorney says evangelicals will not abandon Pruitt, himself a devout member of a Southern Baptist church, “short of him admitting to a crime of violence or that he's stolen money.”
“He's not a liability in their districts. He has the enthusiastic backing of the evangelical right,” that attorney says, adding that the same factor may be an element in Trump's public statements. “Trump doesn't care about [scandal]. He cares about his base, and Pruitt is from the base.”
A law professor notes that given the GOP base's support for EPA's deregulatory agenda, as well as evangelicals' backing of Pruitt in particular, any loss of support is unlikely to become public until it reaches critical mass. “It's very hard to tell when a congressional coalition might break, or when there might be movement we're not seeing in public.”
Electoral Ambitions
However, the former official says that even if Pruitt has avoided being forced out of the Cabinet he still seems to at least be considering a campaign for office -- in particular, the persistent rumors that he will run for Senate if Inhofe retires at the end of his current term in 2020.
“If speculation that he's going to run for Senate is accurate, he's going to need two years to fund-raise,” and would thus be expected to leave EPA by early 2019, the former official says.
That official and others note that even though Pruitt has denied plans to leave the agency, he has targeted a series of high-profile rules for completion at the end of 2018 -- an aggressive timeline that would allow him to depart on schedule for a Senate run and also tout his deregulatory successes during the campaign.
“He would like to be in a position to say by the end of the year that he's accomplished a huge great deal,” the industry attorney says. The list of rules Pruitt has pledged to complete this year include a new standard for Clean Water Act jurisdiction and a reworked greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants -- both replacing major Obama-era policies that Pruitt sued over as Oklahoma attorney general.
Yet the former official says Pruitt's self-imposed 2018 deadlines risk creating conflict within EPA -- and not just between the administrator and career officials, where there has already been well-documented friction, but with his own political team. That is due to the risk that hastily-crafted rules will not survive judicial review, jeopardizing conservatives' policy goals.
“The folks [at EPA], and this includes his political folks, are trying to come up with rules that are legally defensible. He doesn't care if they're legally defensible. . . . because if they're overturned, they won't be overturned on his watch. He'll be gone,” the former official says.
The law professor says that same dynamic could help turn legislators against Pruitt. “I would think there would be a concern about long-term effects of his actions. That is, by taking action in a corner-cutting and I think sloppy way, very little that he is doing will have a long-term impact. . . . It's puzzling that they would not be concerned about the enduring nature of regulatory action,” the professor says.
IG Investigations
The sources say that the most likely way for Pruitt to lose support from his own party is if one of the many pending EPA Office of Inspector General (IG) or Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations into his behavior turns up evidence of wrongdoing by the administrator personally.
But when those offices will release their findings is still uncertain.
“I don't see a big push coming to say we've got to get rid of this guy, unless one of the reports turns up serious new evidence,” the industry attorney says.
To that end, environmentalists and other Trump opponents have recently pressed the IG to move quickly on at least a few of the pending investigations. A May 16 letter signed by more than 300 former EPA employees and organized by Environmental Integrity Project says, “We write to respectfully request that you complete your investigation and present your findings as soon as possible, so that EPA can better focus on its statutory responsibilities.”
But the former EPA official says such calls are unlikely to sway the office. “Most IGs are going to wait until they've finished their report. They're not going to let something like this rush them. Especially when it involves the head of the agency, they're going to want to make sure they've got it right.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-scandals-observers-see-little-chance-pruitts-ouster-epa
-
Pompeo Back on the Hill for First Time Since Confirmation
May 21, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is scheduled to appear before Congress twice next week to discuss his agency's budget, operations and policy priorities. This will be his first appearance since being confirmed.
Pompeo, the former CIA director who replaced Rex Tillerson as head of State, will come before the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees.
He is expected to discuss North Korea, the Iran deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While Democratic lawmakers will likely grill the former Kansas congressman about international efforts to combat climate change, it is unlikely to be a top priority.
During Pompeo's confirmation process, environmentalists and climate activists slammed the nominee for his support of President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and for comments he has made about climate change in general (Greenwire, April 12).
While as a congressman Pompeo blasted President Obama's climate agenda as "radical," he has since conceded that humans are affecting global warming.
"I also believe that the climate is changing, that there is a warming taking place," he said in response to questioning by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) at his confirmation hearing last month (E&E News PM, April 12).
Democrats are also likely to question Pompeo this week about requested budget cuts to international climate and environmental funds.
In its fiscal 2019 budget, the administration requested $68 million for the Global Environment Facility, which includes more than 180 nations. The president had requested $102 million for fiscal 2018, and the fund received $147 million in fiscal 2017.
For two other environmental trust funds — the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program and the International Fund for Agricultural Development — the administration did not request funding for fiscal 2019.
The White House has also requested fewer funds for international organizations that facilitate collective action by the global community to combat a number of issues including climate change. The fiscal 2018 request was $996 million, while the fiscal 2019 request is $99 million.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/21/stories/1060082179
-
May 18, 2018 | Democracy Now!
By Amy Goodman
kkk
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/5/18/trumps_epa_doesnt_want_you_to#transcript
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Demand Release of Formaldehyde Timeline, Documents
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
Senate Democrats are raising concerns that EPA is withholding a review of formaldehyde that allegedly found the chemical causes cancer in some people who are exposed to it.
They are urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to provide a timeline for completion of the formaldehyde assessment as well as communications about the delayed review between top EPA political appointees and outside groups that have an economic interest in preventing strict regulation of the chemical.
Formaldehyde is used in everything from plywood to insecticides. But the assessment of its health effects hasn't been updated since 1991, when EPA concluded it was a "probable" carcinogen. Then in 1998, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) began re-evaluating the compound — a process that is still incomplete two decades later.
Democratic Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Tom Carper of Delaware claim that Pruitt's EPA is attempting to draw the process out further.
"Based upon our review of publicly available documents, internal EPA documents, and conversations with former EPA employee(s) with knowledge of the formaldehyde assessment's progress, it is our understanding that IRIS completed its revised draft assessment during the fall of 2017," they wrote in a letter yesterday. "We further understand that this draft assessment found formaldehyde to be carcinogenic, presenting evidence for nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia, among other risks to human health."
The latest delay, according to the lawmakers, is due to the efforts of EPA leaders like Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff; Bill Wehrum, the assistant administrator of the air program; and Nancy Beck, the top political appointee in the chemicals office.
They also raise concerns about the influence of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents formaldehyde companies, and Exxon Mobil Corp., whose refining operations produce formaldehyde emissions.
The letter notes Markey and Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, have both pressed Pruitt for information on the formaldehyde assessment and received no substantive responses. That's why, the letter explains, they are now requesting extensive documentation about its status.
"It appears that the agency may be succumbing to pressure from industry in its attempt to delay or block the publication of the formaldehyde health assessment," the senators said. "This is exceptionally disturbing, and lends further credence to the belief, already widely held, that EPA has been captured by industry."
They conclude by urging Pruitt "to ensure there are no further efforts to delay or block the publication of this assessment that has serious implications for public health."
An EPA spokeswoman said "we will respond to the senator through the proper channels."
ACC didn't dispute that it had worked with EPA on the assessment.
"The American Chemistry Council (ACC) Formaldehyde Panel met regularly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as held a one-and-a-half-day Invited Expert Workshop this past October to discuss the large body of research that supports the conclusion that formaldehyde does not cause leukemia and that there are clearly defined safe thresholds for formaldehyde exposure," an ACC spokeswoman said in an email. "These meetings are a matter of public record."
Exxon Mobil declined to respond to a request for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/18/stories/1060082147
-
Vulnerable Republicans Push for Releasing Health Study
May 21, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
House Republicans in tight re-election races have joined the chorus of lawmakers calling for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to stop withholding a health study on fire-resistant chemicals that has the White House worried.
"The American people have a right to see taxpayer-funded research on the human health effects of exposure to PFOS and PFOA," the letter from 13 lawmakers said, referring to perfluorooctanesulfonic and perfluorooctanoic acids.
The members of Congress — led by Pennsylvania Reps. Brendan Boyle, a Democrat, and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican — last Friday demanded that Pruitt explain the work his top deputies had done on PFOS and PFOA and that he push for "the immediate release" of the Department of Health and Human Services study.
The toxicology profile they were referring to is being conducted by HHS's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR.
Emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists watchdog group show a White House official was concerned in January that the study could be a "potential public relations nightmare."
The official claimed that the draft toxicology profile was nearly "ready to publish" and that it would show PFOS and PFOA are harmful at levels much lower than those EPA has deemed safe.
In response to the White House's note, Richard Yamada, the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Research and Development, told Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, that he was working on the issue with HHS and the Department of Defense. Many military bases have been polluted by PFAS or PFOA firefighting foams.
But ATSDR told E&E News last week that it was still working on the study (E&E Daily, May 15).
Lawmakers now want more information about EPA's interactions with ATSDR.
"Too many communities across the nation are plagued by ongoing, serious questions regarding the threat the contamination may pose to their health and that of their loved ones," they wrote. "Many of us represent these communities."
EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the bipartisan letter. Calls for the study's release were previously confined to Democratic lawmakers.
In addition to Fitzpatrick, the Friday letter was signed by two other GOP members: Reps. Peter King of New York and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, a member of House leadership who is campaigning for her eighth term.
McMorris Rodgers' signature is notable because she generally avoids getting involved in environmental issues. But she is facing a surprisingly competitive race in a rural district the GOP has held for nearly 25 years.
Fitzpatrick, who first came to Congress in 2016, is also in a bruising re-election battle.
The other Democratic signatories were Reps. Paul Tonko and Sean Maloney of New York, Richard Neal and Bill Keating of Massachusetts, Peter Welch of Vermont, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, Dan Kildee of Michigan, Ted Lieu of California, and Diana DeGette of Colorado.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/21/stories/1060082209
-
13 Bipartisan Lawmakers Demand Pruitt Explain Blocking Chemicals Study
May 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
A member of House Republican leadership and a staunch Trump ally are among 13 House lawmakers demanding the immediate release of a chemicals study and an explanation from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt about his staff's efforts to block it.
"The American people have a right to see tax-payer funded research on the human health effects of exposure to PFOS and PFOA," the bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote in a letter sent to Pruitt today, referencing a POLITICO report Monday showing political officials at EPA and the White House sought to block an HHS study that found a class of chemicals could be dangerous at far lower levels than EPA has previously said were safe.
"We demand your explanation for these reports and, most importantly, the immediate release of the HHS study," the letter continues.
Among the lawmakers signing the letter are Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), a member of House leadership, and Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), an early Trump backer and close ally in the president's efforts to fend off the Russia probe.
Pruitt told senators Wednesday he was unaware that his staff had interfered with the report. He said he remains open to the possibility of regulating the chemicals PFOA and PFOS under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The lawmakers suggested the HHS study should guide any future EPA actions on the chemicals.
WHAT'S NEXT: Pruitt is hosting a "leadership summit" on the chemicals problem at EPA headquarters next week, where he is expected to face pressure on the stalled health study.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Esso Raffinage Scores EU Court Win in Chemical Dispute
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The European Union’s chemical regulator needs more than a “mere letter” to ask a country within the bloc to enforce against an ExxonMobil subsidiary in a REACH chemicals case.
Rather, the European Chemicals Agency must follow procedures set out in the 2006 REACH chemicals regulation, an EU court ruled.
The General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg ruled in favor of a France-based refining subsidiary of ExxonMobil in a dispute over the company’s REACH registration dossier for an industrial chemical that is unnamed in court documents.
The EU agency had concluded that subsidiary Esso Raffinage’s REACH registration dossier did not comply with the regulation, according to the court’s May 8 ruling. It called on France’s chemical regulator in an April 2015 letter to take enforcement action against the company.
The court agreed with Esso Raffinage that the letter went beyond providing just a technical opinion or factual record of the case, and that the agency therefore should have formally adopted a decision—among other things stating the basis for its conclusions in the case—as required by the REACH Regulation.
In particular, the chemicals agency “may not send to the competent national authorities statements of non-compliance, in the form of a mere letter,” the court said in a news release.
More Studies SoughtEsso Raffinage had submitted an update in November 2010 to its registration dossier for a chemical it markets for use in industrial products, as required by REACH for compounds manufactured or imported in volumes exceeding 1,000 metric tons per year. In finding the dossier incomplete, the EU agency asked the company for more information, including a prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits.
Esso Raffinage didn’t challenge the agency’s decision, which consequently became final, but instead sought to show that a rabbit toxicity study was unnecessary.
The agency sent the letter in English to the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing and to the company outlining its reasons for finding the registration dossier unacceptable.
Esso Raffinage asked the General Court May 29, 2015, to annul the EU chemical agency’s letter, which the court did.
The agency argued that it never intended the communications to be “binding on the competent national authorities or the registrants concerned,” but only to set out its point of view on the case. But the court said the communications could have led to the imposition of penalties by the French authority.
Agency Can AppealA spokesman for ExxonMobil said the company doesn’t want to talk up its win just yet, noting that the chemicals agency has two months to appeal to the European Court of Justice, the EU’s highest court.
“We welcome this ruling. ExxonMobil remains fully committed to complying with and supporting REACH,” the spokesman told Bloomberg Environment via email.
A chemical agency spokesperson, meanwhile, told Bloomberg Environment that its officials have not yet decided whether to appeal. “We are still analyzing the judgment,” the spokesperson, who asked not to be identified, in an email.
Other companies, the spokesperson said, have contested its compliance decisions, but “in the vast majority of cases, REACH registrants comply with [the chemical agency’s] evaluation decisions.”
The court’s ruling confirmed that EU countries can impose sanctions on chemical companies for the period during which their registration dossier was not compliant, the agency said.
The agency has since implemented a new decision-making process that it now believes largely covers the situation described by the EU court, the spokesperson said.
Chemical agency officials are now assessing if they need to make any other adjustments based on the court ruling, the spokesperson added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/esso-raffinage-scores-eu-court-win-in-chemical-dispute
-
(ACC Mentioned) Conference on Oil, Gas Development to Be Held in Pennsylvania
May 20, 2018 | Parkersburg News
A conference on oil and gas development in the Marcellus and Utica shales and opportunities with the proposed Appalachian Storage Hub will be held June 7 in Canonsburg, Pa. The Appalachian Storage Hub Conference will be presented by Shale Directories President Joe Barone and TopLine Analytics CEO Tom Gellrich and will be held at the Hilton Garden at Southpointe in Canonsburg. The sponsor is the Washington County (Pa.) Chamber of Commerce.
The multi-billion-dollar Appalachian Storage Hub takes advantage of the geologic formations to store natural gas for eventual distribution to markets. Three sites are under consideration in West Virginia, including the Bens Run area in Tyler County. The conference is designed for those who would benefit as the Appalachian Storage Hub moves forward, including construction and engineering companies, surveyors, law firms, suppliers, investors and government, spokesman Jack Wollitz said.
Topics will include:
* Appalachian Basin shale gas revolution and development of major chemical processing capabilities,
* The need for the storage hub and its economic growth potential,
* What state governments are doing and what still must be done,
* Opportunities for investment,
* Comparisons between the Appalachian Basin and the Gulf Coast.
Among the panelists will be: Tom Gellrich, CEO, TopLine Analytics; Tim Hanley, vice president, Mountaineer Storage; Brent Breon, vice president business development, Blue Racer; Heather Rose-Glowacki, director, American Chemistry Council; Robert Johnson, president, A Different Kind of Lobbyist; Curtis Wilkerson, president, Orion Strategies; Chad Riley, CEO, Thrasher Group; Joe Bozada, CFO/COO, Appalachian Development Group; Jorge Pelaez, Benning & Scattergood; Cole Claiborn, associate director, ORIX USA; Damian Georgino, special counsel Evershelds – Sutherland; Robert M. Kolaczynski Jr., co-founder and managing partner, Freestone Industries; Tom Gellrich, CEO, TopLine Analytics; Jerry James, president, Artex Oil; Taylor Robinson, president, PLG Consulting.
“The Appalachian Storage Hub opportunities are real. They are not just on our region’s wish list, they are happening,” Barone said.
Gellrich said the conference will feature experts who understand the significance of the Appalachian Storage Hub and the critical role it will play in reducing costs and enhancing the logistics associated with processing gas to produce materials that will help drive regional and national economic growth. Around the world, 130 companies are operating ethylene crackers and most are headquartered outside of the U.S., Gellrich said.
“Many are in locations with high capital and raw material costs, so they are looking at our Utica and Marcellus shale as having tremendous potential,”he said. “The Appalachian Storage Hub Conference will cover this topic head-on with facts and in-depth discussion to bring light to the development under way and that which is still to come.”
http://www.newsandsentinel.com/news/business/2018/05/conference-on-oil-gas-development-to-be-held-in-pennsylvania/
-
Trump's Checkered History on Building Efficiency
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
President Trump's executive order on energy efficiency last week was a stark contrast to his other energy policy moves but a throwback to his days as a real estate mogul, when he took advantage of government energy conservation incentives to cut costs at his properties.
The order directed federal agencies to track energy savings, consider steps to become more fuel-efficient and report their progress annually. "Each agency shall prioritize actions that reduce waste, cut costs, enhance the resilience of Federal infrastructure and operations, and enable more effective accomplishment of its mission," it said.
As a property developer, Trump publicly embraced building efficiency. A 37-story condominiumin White Plains, N.Y., received more than $280,000 in funding from the state, as well as a separate loan.
"I strongly believe in clean energy, in conserving energy, all of that — more than anybody," Trump said in a blurb touting another Trump property, a 35-story high-rise also in White Plains. In 2011, the New York state energy office helped install water heaters in the building.
But from the Oval Office, Trump's policies have not reflected those of someone who, "more than anybody," believes in conserving energy.
His latest budget requested a more than 50 percent cut to an office within the Department of Energy that focuses on energy efficiency research and development. The White House also tried to halve the budget of the efficiency division, which falls within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, by 2019 in its proposal.
Trump has also targeted specific energy-saving measures. He signed the Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act earlier this year, which delays efficiency standards for ceiling fans and the fans' lights. And he proposed killing off the Energy Star program, which provides efficiency labels for appliances like dishwashers, dryers and microwaves, last year.
"While Trump has said supportive things on energy efficiency in the past, it has not been reflected in his policy agenda," Elizabeth Noll, deputy director for congressional and external affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an email.
And while last week's order appears to elevate energy efficiency, it also weakens federal agencies' goals on greenhouse gases by replacing a 2015 executive order by former President Obama. Trump's action rescinded a requirement that departments publish reports on their environmental sustainability (Climatewire, May 18).
The order is "an environmental rollback masquerading as a pro-efficiency policy," Noll said. While it requires federal agencies to meet goals for energy and water efficiency in buildings, as well as stormwater management and renewable energy consumption, "it does not specify these goals and instead defers to the minimum requirements set by Congress," she said. And many of those requirements themselves are out of date, according to Noll.Trump properties also fall short
While the Trump Organization has taken advantage of energy efficiency programs, its crown jewel properties in Chicago and New York are among the worst energy consumers in those cities.
Out of a possible 100 Energy Star points, the Trump Tower in Chicago received 9, according to 2016 rankings of thousands of buildings in the city.f
"Trump Tower utilizes several creative design solutions in the mechanical system but does not maximize potential of energy efficiency," Michael Smith, an architectural analyst, said in his 2009 report on the building.
Of the mechanics of the building, he said, "energy efficiency was not the driving force."
Trump Tower in New York City fared slightly better: In 2015, it received a score of 48, based on the Energy Star program, according to the U.S. Green Building Council figures.
Still, efficiency advocates are hoping last week's order will have some effect on federal agencies.
"Even without specific targets, we hope the agencies will follow this guidance to achieve the many benefits of energy efficiency in reducing waste, cutting costs, enhancing resilience, improving effectiveness and protecting the environment," said Lowell Ungar, senior policy adviser at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/21/stories/1060082219
-
Andrew Cuomo’s Wind Farm Won’t Fly Without Fracking
May 18, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Robert Bryce
New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo led the cheer squad last month when the Interior Department announced it would begin allowing offshore wind turbines to be built in the shallow waters between New Jersey and Long Island. Mr. Cuomo had recently announced a $6 billion plan to build 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, with the costs passed on to bill payers. But though Mr. Cuomo portrays himself as a champion of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, his simultaneous opposition to a New York City-area nuclear plant exposes his wind plan as a mere play for progressive prestige.
Mr. Cuomo isn’t the only Northeastern governor with windy ambitions. Massachusetts’ Charlie Baker signed a bill in 2016 committing his state to develop 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2027, and New Jersey’s Phil Murphy decreed in January that the Garden State would aim for 3,500 megawatts of offshore wind power by 2030.
But Mr. Cuomo is working the hardest of all to maximize his climate-change credentials. Sitting next to former Vice President Al Gore in 2015, he signed a document committing New York to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions 80% before 2050.
For all his bluster, however, Mr. Cuomo made it clear in January 2017 that his true priority is pleasing environmentalists, not cutting emissions. That was when he gleefully announced that the nuclear-powered Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, N.Y., which provides abundant low-cost electricity while producing zero carbon-dioxide emissions, would close by 2021.
Activists like to urge climate-change skeptics to “do the math” on emissions and temperatures—so let’s start by looking at Indian Point’s output. The twin-reactor 2,069-megawatt plant, which sits on the banks of the Hudson River a few dozen miles north of Times Square, produces about 16,600 gigawatt-hours of electricity a year. That’s about a quarter of New York City’s consumption.
Given the troubled history of offshore wind projects like Massachusetts’ ill-fated Cape Wind, it is far from certain that Mr. Cuomo will succeed in building the full 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind capacity proposed in his outline. But even if he does, New York’s emissions are still likely to rise, because the proposed offshore capacity won’t come close to replacing the energy generated by Indian Point.
Comparing Mr. Cuomo’s wind proposal with a pending offshore project allows us to estimate the amount of power it will generate. The proposed South Fork wind project is a 90-megawatt facility scheduled to be built near the eastern end of Long Island. That project—which is opposed by local fisherman—is expected to produce 370 gigawatt-hours of electricity a year. In other words, each megawatt of capacity at South Fork will annually produce about 4.1 gigawatt-hours. If the same ratio holds for Mr. Cuomo’s plan, its 2,400 megawatts of capacity will produce about 9,840 gigawatt-hours of electricity a year. That’s only about 60% of the juice New Yorkers now get from Indian Point.
This simple arithmetic shows that while Mr. Cuomo and his green allies are touting offshore wind, the premature closure of Indian Point will leave New York with a big gap in its electricity sources. What will fill the hole? The short answer, as was revealed by the New York Independent System Operator last December, is natural gas.
If Indian Point closes as scheduled, the NYISO expects its output will be replaced by electricity from three gas-fired plants now under construction, including the 678-megawatt CPV Valley Energy Center in Wawayanda, N.Y., the 1,020-megawatt Cricket Valley Energy Center in Dover, N.Y., and a 120-megawatt addition to the Bayonne Energy Center in New Jersey.
The irony here is colossal. Mr. Cuomo, who banned hydraulic fracturing despite the economic boon it has created in neighboring Pennsylvania, and who has repeatedly blocked construction of pipelines, is making New York even more dependent on natural gas, which will increase its carbon emissions. At the same time, he has mandated offshore wind projects that will force New Yorkers to pay more for their electricity, even though the state already has some of the nation’s highest electricity prices.
That’s the kind of green record a high-profile Democrat might use to run for the White House—which appears to be Mr. Cuomo’s only real priority.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/andrew-cuomos-wind-farm-wont-fly-without-fracking-1526679929
-
Steyer Gets a Clean Energy Win
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Tom Steyer was in a good mood on Friday.
The deep-pocketed climate change crusader, who's not often optimistic about the trajectory of warming, was upbeat because he made progress in his latest clean energy battle.
Two major Michigan utility companies — Consumers Energy and DTE Energy Co. — agreed to increase renewable energy sources to 25 percent by 2030. They will also enact energy efficiency plans.
The deal comes after Steyer's group launched a Michigan ballot initiative in February to mandate that electricity companies produce 30 percent of their energy from renewables. (Existing state law requires providers to reach 15 percent renewable energy by 2022.)
In return, the Steyer-backed group Clean Energy, Healthy Michigan announced it would drop the ballot initiative that had nearly enough signatures to qualify it for the November ballot.
"We felt this was something that the people of Michigan would vote for," Steyer told E&E News.
Steyer said the agreement demonstrates the goodwill among different sectors to come together to fight climate change. "CEOs were willing to talk about it. Unions were included all along. This is also a state that includes, last I checked, Flint, Mich. Pollution harms specifically the health of low-income [people]. It is not something that is lost in Michigan."
He added: "It is a huge narrative that flies in the face of the lies that the Trump administration is putting out: 'If we actually take into account public health, we are going to go bankrupt.' Businesses and organized labor coming together saying that is absolutely not true."
His organization NextGen America launched similar efforts in Arizona and Nevada.
The deal comes at a time when the Michigan utility giants are phasing out coal and incorporating wind and solar into their energy plans.
It also comes as Steyer's face has appeared in ads across the country calling for President Trump's impeachment. In addition, Steyer is bankrolling some Democratic campaigns in the hope of stripping control of Congress from Republicans.
It seems like Steyer is popping up just about everywhere, leading many to believe he has ambitions for higher office.
He is not running this year, but he has poured $16 million into congressional campaigns throughout the country. Asked who he believes is a leader on climate change policy, he lamented that the Democratic members of Congress are hamstrung. "Not a darn thing we can do until we win more elections," he said.
Plenty of leadership on climate change solutions exists throughout the country, he added. He listed a number of Democratic governors: Jay Inslee of Washington, Jerry Brown of California, Phil Murphy of New Jersey and Kate Brown of Oregon, to name a few. (He also named California state Rep. Eduardo Garcia (D) of Coachella Valley as an "absolute killer leader on this stuff.")
Steyer has not endorsed anyone in the California governor's race. Brown is terming out, and his handpicked successor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, is up against former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa; state Treasurer John Chiang; and John Cox, Delaine Eastin and Travis Allen, among other lesser-known candidates.
Will he endorse?
"I don't know," he said.
He has, however, endorsed California Democratic state Sen. Kevin de León (D) in his uphill battle to unseat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D).
Does he think de León has a shot?
"I don't want to make predictions," Steyer said. "Kevin has been a true leader on climate."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/21/stories/1060082157
-
Scalise, Bishop Aim for Deal to Open Florida's Gulf Coast Waters for Drilling
May 18, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) are aiming to strike a deal to allow offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico if the U.S. military and federal government sign off, but it remains uncertain if their effort can convince Florida lawmakers to drop their sharp opposition to oil exploration off the state's coasts.
On Wednesday, senior Interior and Defense officials briefed a working group of lawmakers from five Gulf Coast states who are seeking to expand energy exploration, according to Scalise's office and Bishop. And the Utah Republican says he plans to draft legislative language on offshore oil and gas drilling that he hopes to incorporate in either the National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 5515 (115) or a broad energy package H.R. 4239 (115).
“There are some areas where if there’s sufficient agreement between Interior and Defense so it doesn’t impact the military mission, they can work that out,” Bishop told POLITICO. “You can put a moratorium [on drilling] but you give some flexibility, so depending on what the military actually needs there could be some development in some areas, which happen to be where the oil deposits actually are that [energy companies] want.”
A spokesperson for Scalise confirmed he was part of the effort seeking a "constructive path forward" for offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf.
"In the briefing, both [Interior and Defense] agreed that with appropriate restrictions and proper coordination by the two departments, there are some areas in the federal waters of the eastern Gulf that could support both military and energy activities," the spokesperson said. "Whip Scalise looks forward to working with the Chairman and the other members of the working group on a path forward to ensure our military training exercises in the region are not compromised while also supporting the President’s Energy Dominance strategy.”
Several Republican sources said the issue has reached the secretarial level within the agencies — as well as the Oval Office. But one source familiar with negotiations said while they're moving in the right direction, they may not find agreement this year on how to handle the current moratorium that expires in 2022.
"The Florida guys are going to have to make a decision about what exactly they want," the source said.
Some members of the Florida delegation have voiced openness toward allowing some drilling in the region provided the agencies sign off on it, according to the source. And the interest in the eastern Gulf is likely to be mainly in deepwater areas rather than shallower waters close to shore.
"I don’t think there’s a chance there’s going to be near-shore leasing," the source said.
Oil and gas leasing is prohibited within 125 miles of the Florida coast under a moratorium that runs to 2022. The state’s congressional delegation and Republican Gov. Rick Scott have vocally opposed expanding drilling over concerns about impacts to the state's huge tourism industry as well as military operations there.
“Imagine resting on one of our white sand beaches, or swimming in our crystal-clear waters in sight of a farm of obtrusive white tanks full of oil, or having to watch large steel offshore supply vessels navigate and anchor nearby, crowding out our recreational and fishing boats,” ten Florida House Republicans wrote February in the Tampa Bay Times. “The barges, workboats, tank farms, pipelines, mooring balls and other equipment that accompany offshore drilling and production are wholly incompatible with our tourism and residential economy.”
Three Florida Republicans — Reps. Matt Gaetz, Francis Rooney and Gus Bilirakis — attended the Wednesday meeting with Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Kate MacGregor and several Defense Department officials.
Other participants included Scalise, Bradley Byrne (Ala.), Bill Flores (Texas), Garret Graves (La.), James Michael Johnson (La.), Pete Olson (Texas), Steven Palazzo (Miss.) and Randy Weber (Texas).
One attendee of the meeting said Defense and Interior officials presented a "consistent front" about finding a way toward allowing expanded energy exploration, and provided other examples around the country where they'd coordinated around military operations before.
"We’ve received some encouraging assurances by the Administration that they will listen to the voices of those most informed about the unique needs of our state and defer to our judgment,” Bilirakis told POLITICO in a statement. “However, as these latest conversations indicate, we must remain vigilant to ensure current protections remain in place for an extended period of time."
Bishop cited language in a Defense Department report released last week suggesting oil and gas drilling could take place in the region with “sufficient surface limiting stipulations and/or oil and gas activity restrictions” agreed upon by the Interior and Defense departments. That same report warned of a "less acceptable and less prepared military force” if the proper safeguards were not put in place.
But Bishop doesn’t see why lawmakers would oppose expanded energy production if the government signs off on it.
“If the military says, ‘It’s okay with us’ why wouldn’t anybody be okay with it?” he asked. “I can see an easy — I emphasize the word easy — solution so everyone’s happy.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/scalise-bishop-see-possible-offshore-drilling-compromise-555019
-
Dominion Ruling Signals Climate Rift at Federal Energy Regulator
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
Just weeks after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission launched a sweeping review of its natural gas pipeline policy, its members are again split on the extent to which they should take climate change into account.
In the latest clash, the commission’s Republican members voted to dismiss an environmental group’s challenge to Dominion Energy Inc.’s New Market gas pipeline in upstate New York, ruling that the modest project didn’t warrant an analysis of upstream or downstream greenhouse emissions.
The agency’s two Democrats, Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick, characterized the dismissal as a de facto policy change that limits how the commission factors in climate change.
“I find it particularly disappointing that the Commission is adopting this new policy just as it embarks on a broad review of the Commission’s process for certificating new natural gas pipelines, which will include how greenhouse gas emissions are assessed,” Glick wrote in his dissent.
This isn’t the first time cracks have appeared at the five-member agency: Both LaFLeur and Glick expressed concerns over pipeline approvals in recent months.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in its 2017 ruling in Sierra Club v. FERC, ruled that the commission failed to consider climate change impacts in its approval of the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline, a joint venture of Spectra Energy Partners, NextEra Energy Inc., and Duke Energy Corp.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
That court ruling “clearly signaled that the Commission should be doing more as part of its environmental reviews,” LaFleur said May 18. “Today, however, the majority has changed the Commission’s approach for environmental reviews to do the exact opposite.“
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dominion-ruling-signals-climate-rift-at-federal-energy-regulator
-
Ferc Shifts Policy to Limit Climate Consideration
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today changed its policy on when it will consider and disclose the upstream and downstream impacts of greenhouse gas emissions connected to natural gas projects it reviews.
The move triggered frustration from the two Democrats on the majority-Republican commission, who both said they believe that the change is unlawful and that it undermines an ongoing, comprehensive review of pipeline policy at the agency.
The shift came as FERC denied a rehearing request for its approval of Dominion Energy Transmission Inc.'s New Market Project, a series of upgrades and new construction for natural gas compression stations in New York.
In rejecting the rehearing request of Otsego 2000, a New York environmental nonprofit, the FERC majority — including Chairman Kevin McIntyre and Republican Commissioners Neil Chatterjee and Robert Powelson — argued that information FERC was previously including in its review of projects about the potential climate impacts of natural gas consumption and production was "generic" and "inherently speculative."
Since 2016, FERC has been including estimates of upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in its pipeline orders. A court decision last year found that downstream greenhouse gas emissions of a specific project were to be considered an indirect impact, which critics said meant that FERC needed to do more in its environmental reviews to consider emissions impacts.
But the decision today, some say, moves the commission in the opposite direction.
"Providing a broad analysis based on generalized assumptions rather than reasonably specific information does not meaningfully inform the Commission's project-specific review," FERC wrote. "Nor is it helpful to the public if the Commission provides such broad and imprecise information. Rather, doing so muddles the scope of our obligations under [the National Environmental Policy Act] and the factors that we find should be considered under [the Natural Gas Act]."
The majority wrote that FERC's policy moving forward is to analyze upstream and downstream environmental effects of a project only when they are "indirect or cumulative impacts" as determined by Council on Environmental Quality regulations.
FERC's two Democratic commissioners, Richard Glick and Cheryl LaFleur, both dissented from the order.
Glick said the FERC majority is taking on a "remarkably narrow view of its responsibilities under NEPA and the NGA's public interest standard."
Under the new policy, he said, even if FERC knows that new pipeline facilities would have an environmental impact, the commission is not obligated to consider them.
"That approach violates NEPA's requirement that federal agencies take 'a hard look at [the] environmental consequences' of their decisions," Glick wrote.
He and LaFleur also both said they find it problematic that the policy was changed at the same time as FERC undergoes a major, comprehensive review of its pipeline permitting policy, which has not been updated since 1999.
"I am particularly troubled that this policy shift is occurring a few weeks after we initiated a generic proceeding to look broadly at the Commission's pipeline review, and more specifically at the Commission's current policy regarding consideration of upstream and downstream impacts," LaFleur wrote in her dissent.
Experts have said the pipeline review could be a forum for FERC to make broad changes to the way it considers climate impacts (Greenwire, April 25).
Gillian Giannetti, a staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that her organization "fundamentally disagrees with the majority's conclusion."
She also noted that it's the second time in recent weeks that FERC has made a major policy decision in the course of ruling on an otherwise routine order. In March, the Republican majority voted to revise its policies to more strictly adhere to the agency's rules for formal intervenors to join proceedings "out of time" or late, a move that critics said could chill public participation in the agency's review of pipelines (Greenwire, March 27).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/18/stories/1060082141
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants to Rescind Obama Chemical Plant Regulations
May 18, 2018 | Insurance Journal
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took steps on Thursday to roll back and delay Obama-era rules aimed at improving safety at chemical plants, which had come in response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas that killed 15 people.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt introduced a proposal to rescind the measures, saying it would save the industry tens of millions of dollars a year and “better address potential security risks.”
“The rule proposes to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year,” Pruitt said in a statement.
The proposal would also delay some of the compliance dates of the Obama-era amendments and cancel certain provisions that address accident prevention.
It was the latest in a string of Trump administration proposals aimed at rolling back environmental regulations put in place by former Democratic President Barack Obama, which industry groups have said added to their regulatory burdens.
In January 2017, before Republican President Donald Trump took office, the EPA introduced several changes to companies’ risk management plans they submit to the agency, including requiring more analysis of safety technology, third-party audits and incident investigation analyzes and stricter emergency preparedness requirements.
Last February, the EPA received a petition from a coalition of chemical and energy industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute, to delay and reconsider the Obama-era amendments.
The explosion at the West Texas fertilizer plant killed 15 people, including 12 firefighters. Scores of others were injured and more than 500 homes were damaged in the blast, with total damaged estimated at more than $100 million.
The source of the explosion was ammonium nitrate stored in a wooden container at the plant, investigators said.
The EPA press release announcing the proposed changes to the Obama administration amendments, included a statement from the National Association of Chemical Distributors.
“The Obama Administration would have imposed significant new costs on industry without identifying or quantifying the safety benefits to be achieved through new requirements,” the lobby group’s president, Eric Byer, said.
The United Steelworkers union said in a statement on Thursday it strongly opposed the proposed rollbacks.
“USW members work in dangerous facilities that house huge quantities of hazardous chemicals. We are strongly opposed to this deregulation that endangers workers and their communities,” the group said.
The proposed rule will be open to public comment for 60 days and a public hearing on the rule is scheduled for June 14.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/05/18/489775.htm
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Rescind, Revise Amendments to RMP Rule
May 18, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with plans to rescind or modify rules published during the waning days of the Obama administration and which have yet to take effect that are designed to prevent accidents and explosions at refineries and other industrial facilities.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Thursday signed a proposed rule requesting public comment on several proposed changes to amendments to its Risk Management Program (RMP) rule published in January 2017. Pruitt said the proposed rule would reduce "unnecessary regulatory burdens" and save Americans $88 million a year.
"Accident prevention is a top priority at EPA, and this proposed rule will ensure proper emergency planning and continue the trend of fewer significant accidents involving chemicals," he said.
The RMP rule amendments had called for making changes to the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements for Risk Management Programs under the Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act. They emerged in response to an executive order issued by President Obama following several industrial accidents, including an ammonium nitrate explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, in April 2013.
However, in June 2017, six months after the RMP amendments were published, and at the urging of several trade associations collectively calling themselves the RMP Coalition, Pruitt signed a final rule postponing the effective date of the amendments until Feb. 19, 2019. The coalition includes the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
"EPA's proposal fixes the serious problems created by misguided changes that were hastily adopted during the final days of the Obama administration," said ACC’s Mike Wall, vice president for regulatory and technical affairs. "It also reflects the feedback the agency received regarding those changes from a wide range of stakeholders, including the regulated community, Congress, attorneys general and local officials."
API’s Frank Macchiarola, downstream group director, told NGI that "safety is a core value of the oil and gas industry, process safety management systems are central to our operations, and the responsibility for process safety is shared by everyone working in the facilities.
"We have been working closely with EPA over the last year to resolve our concerns with the 2017 amendments, and feel progress has been made. We will have further comment on the proposal during the public comment period.” However, he said, API is encouraged that EPA is “focused on aligning the accident prevention program provisions” with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Process Safety Management standard, “as well as items dealing with public disclosure and emergency coordination."
Under the proposed rule by Pruitt, the EPA would rescind RMP amendments relating to safer technology and alternatives analyses, third-party audits, incident investigations and information availability, along with several other minor regulatory changes. The EPA would also modify RMP amendments covering local emergency coordination, emergency exercises and public meetings. The compliance dates for these provisions would also be changed.
According to the EPA, rescinding or modifying some of the RMP amendments would help address several issues, including the "potential security risks associated with new information disclosure requirements introduced in the final amendments rule," and "concerns about unnecessary regulations and regulatory costs." It would also address findings by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that the incident at West, TX, was caused by arson.
The EPA will accept public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114435-epa-moves-to-rescind-revise-amendments-to-rmp-rule
-
EPA's Plan To Wait On OSHA Could Stall Facility Safety Update For Years
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds and Rebecca Rainey
The Trump administration plan to scrap the Obama-era rule strengthening EPA's facility accident prevention program and wait for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to advance a similar rulemaking could stall changes to facility oversight for the foreseeable future, as OSHA has shelved plans to update its companion rule.
“Saying you're waiting for OSHA is saying you're killing it once and for all,” says Jordan Barab, OSHA's deputy chief under the Obama administration.
EPA May 17 proposed proposed a rule to rescind most requirements of the agency's January 2017 final rule updating its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, though it proposes to retain and amend provisions relating to first responders.
The measure backs industry arguments that it should not bolster oversight of facility processes until OSHA advances a rule updating its Process Safety Management (PSM) rule.
“EPA believes that we should not retain and put into effect changes to the prevention aspects of [RMP] until we have a better understanding of OSHA’s plans for the [Process Safety Management (PSM)] standard changes so that we may move forward in a more coordinated fashion with regulatory changes that improve process safety performance and reduce accidents without causing undue burden and regulatory conflicts,” EPA says in the proposed rule.
But the Trump administration proposed rule, and its plan to follow OSHA's lead on process safety, is drawing pushback from Democratic-led states and environmental groups, who have been challenging the Trump administration's delay of the Obama-era rule in federal court.
They say that EPA has independent statutory duty to protect workers and communities from facility disasters. “Protecting our workers, first-responders, and communities from chemical accidents should be a priority,” said
acting New York State Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) in a May 17 statement, arguing that disasters have continued to occur since EPA delayed implementation of the Obama-era rule in June.
“EPA cannot turn a blind eye to those facts or its statutory duty under the Clean Air Act to issue regulations that prevent the accidental release of hazardous chemicals into our communities,” the statement adds.
“The amendments that [the Obama] EPA put in place were the first meaningful updates to protect workers and communities from chemical facility accidents in decades,” an environmentalist says. EPA's suggestion “that it doesn't need to do anything is inconsistent with the law and its own recognition based on the evidence that in fact serious improvements are necessary to save lives.”
And Barab argues that OSHA will not update its PSM standard under the Trump administration. He notes that any update rule would be costly and difficult to account for under President Donald Trump's executive order requiring repeal of two rules for every new one and a balancing of rules' costs.
'Grossly Overreaching'
But two industry attorneys, who described the Obama-era rule as unnecessary federal overreach, argue that existing rules are adequate. They also say that OSHA is unlikely to soon update its PSM program.
One of the attorneys says that OSHA faces greater burdens in issuing new rules, which the Obama administration sought to alleviate by having EPA act first.
But the source says that even had EPA succeeded in finalizing the RMP rule, OSHA still may have been unable to meet its requirements for showing that similar changes are economically fesasible. “The provisions that EPA adopted were so grossly overreaching, and OSHA would have had trouble justifying them,” the source says.
Shortly before Obama left office in 2017, EPA issued a final rule updating RMP with new requirements. The rule was issued in response to the former president's August 2013 executive order on improving industrial facility safety after a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders.
The rule imposed new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data, and improved coordination between facilities and first responders.
The Obama OSHA was also weighing changes to its PSM rule, but those efforts have stalled as the Trump administration last summer moved the rulemaking effort to a long-term action on the Unified Agenda of federal rules.
But the proposed rule Administrator Scott Pruitt signed seeks to rescind the Obama-era rule's new hazard analysis, auditing, and information sharing requirements.
EPA will seek comment on the proposed revision rule for 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
In justifying the major revisions, EPA argues that the agency under the prior administration took an “inconsistent approach” in meeting a Clean Air Act requirement to consult with OSHA before revising RMP, and backs industry arguments in comments on the proposed rule that OSHA should take the lead in process safety matters.
EPA says that the prior administration, in proposing the 2017 RMP update before OSHA proposed changes to PSM,
allowed for inconsistent requirements and failed to adequately respond to industry criticism of EPA advancing rules ahead of OSHA.
“Our responses were generally focused on the legal permissibility of proceeding on separate schedules rather than the policy wisdom of doing so,” the proposed revision rule says.
The proposed rule also says that under the prior regime EPA it did not give sufficient weight to the value of coordinating with OSHA, and focused too much on its legal authority to act independently.
EPA now proposes to determine that a more sensible approach would be to have a better understanding of what OSHA will be doing in this area before revising the RMP accident prevention program,” the proposed revision rule says. “Thus, EPA proposes to rescind the RMP accident prevention amendments pending further action by OSHA.”
Lawrence Halprin, of the law firm Keller and Heckman, LLP, which represents industry clients, says that OSHA faces higher hurdles in advancing new rules than EPA. While EPA must provide a rationale basis for changing rules, OSHA has to show significant risk, as well as economic and technical feasibility.
Halprin also said that OSHA is unlikely to propose any changes to PSM until after litigation, which will likely come on the proposed RMP revision rule, is resolved. “When the smoke clears from that litigation, then OSHA will see where things are, and probably won't proceed to do anything before then,” he says.
A second industry attorney argued that existing federal rules are adequate and the Obama-era changes were spurred by the explosion in West, TX, which federal investigators suspect resulted from arson rather than a facility accident. “If someone hadn't set the place on fire, you wouldn't have had the problem,” the source says.
The environmentalist source argues that the Obama EPA did coordinate with OSHA as part of an inter-agency working group on implementing the former president's Executive Order on improving facility safety, and that EPA is obligated to issue rules that protect communities from facility disasters.
“These agencies have different legal responsibilities,” the source says, adding that OSHA's PSM rule should be updated, but that is not a reason for scrapping improvements to RMP.
“Administrator Pruitt’s deregulatory agenda has led to this proposal to cancel major portions of the Obama-era regulation including all accident prevention program provisions,” the United Steelworkers says in a May 17 statement. “Further delay in protecting workers and communities is unacceptable.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-plan-wait-osha-could-stall-facility-safety-update-years
-
Invest and Bring Infrastructure into the 21st Century
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Tom McGee And Clarence E. Anthony
The infrastructure we depend on every day – from bridges and highways to utilities and broadband – is essential to our cities and the businesses that support them. Local elected officials and business leaders are working together to realize a new vision for more connected, accessible, and resilient infrastructure networks. We could be doing even more, but mixed signals and uncertain support from Congress are holding back many of these plans. The current two-year federal budget agreement is a step in the right direction. However more investment is needed to truly bring our infrastructure into the 21st Century.
Decades of deferred investment means communities are not effectively being served because of failing infrastructure. Population growth in our cities is compounding the wear and tear on aging infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates businesses will lose $7 trillion by 2025 if vital investment in infrastructure continues to go unaddressed. We can’t wait any longer to make the investments that are desperately needed to reinvigorate communities and build for the future.
According to the Census Bureau, 10 of the 15 fastest growing cities are in the south. The Dallas-Fort Worth region is number two on the list. For Fort Worth, explosive population growth is driving the Fort Worth River Renaissance and Panther Island Project, a holistic approach to development that combines flood protection, urban revitalization, sustainable development, environmental clean-up, and infrastructure development.
Under the Panther Island Project, a once-neglected, industrial section of Fort Worth is being transformed into a lively riverfront neighborhood with vibrant green spaces and bustling mixed-use development. The publicly-funded components of the project will provide, among other things, the restoration of more than 800 acres of underutilized land and opportunities for over 10,000 housing units and 3 million square feet of commercial, retail and educational space.
Washington’s recent focus on infrastructure is a welcome development for cities like Fort Worth. Done correctly – through increased federal investment in American cities, incentives that spur the efficiency of Transit Oriented Development (TOD), expanded opportunities to leverage public funds through public-private partnerships (P3) and more flexibility and effectiveness in development – infrastructure investment will have a significant, far-reaching effect.
Too often, we overlook the many ways that local infrastructure systems support communities. We rely on the safety of roadways to be able to deliver fresh produce to the grocery store or make sure that special dress arrives at the bridal store downtown. When these foundational systems fail, the impact on our lives can be anywhere from inconvenient to catastrophic. On the other hand, the right infrastructure investments can deliver impactful results to the vitality of a community.
There are immediate steps Congress can take toward helping cities and community business leaders create a stronger America. Restoring tools like advance refunding bonds, which saved cities and local taxpayers millions; bringing back a longstanding exemption, known as Section 118, on public contributions to certain development and infrastructure projects; and supporting federal investment in our infrastructure through programs like CDBG, INFRA grants and New Starts are simple steps Washington can take toward building stronger communities and thriving economies.
We’re not going to fix all that ails America’s infrastructure overnight, however, it’s helpful to remember we need an all-of-the-above approach and we must work together to advance infrastructure investment priorities and planning through Congress. Infrastructure investment has the potential to be a tremendous catalyst to bring communities together, improve quality of life and provide jobs and economic growth for years to come.
Tom McGee is president and CEO of ICSC and Clarence E. Anthony is CEO and executive director of the National League of Cities.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/388379-invest-and-bring-infrastructure-into-the-21st-century
-
House Committee Unveils Bipartisan WRDA Bill
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today released a water resources authorization bill that is less controversial than expected.
The panel's Water Resources Development Act authorization, H.R. 8, is sponsored by Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and co-sponsored by ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Chairman Garret Graves (R-La.) and subcommittee ranking member Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.).
"WRDA positively impacts every single state and district in the country," Shuster said in a statement. "This infrastructure is vital to moving goods throughout the country, from the products we all use in our daily lives, to the crops, resources, and goods we produce locally and send overseas in foreign commerce. WRDA works because it improves critical water resources infrastructure, strengthens the economy, and protects our communities."
The bill does not include any changes to the National Environmental Policy Act, nor does it move the Army Corps of Engineers out of the Defense Department. Graves had said both options were on the table as late as this week.
The bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to study the "ability of the Corps to carry out its mission," which should include researching the "potential effects" of moving the corps' Civil Works division from DOD "to a new or existing agency or sub-agency of the federal government."
The language directs the National Academy to "consult" with the corps, the Department of Transportation, EPA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget specifically.
That provision goes further than language in the Senate's water infrastructure bill, which would simply direct the National Academy to examine whether the current structure and organization of the Army Corps is "the most effective for its continued operation."
In a statement, Graves said the House legislation is "a step toward the federal government being a partner instead of an obstacle."
It also does not include many reforms the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee included in its own proposal (E&E News PM, May 8).
Provisions in the upper chamber's bill include the establishment of an appeals board for water storage projects and requiring Army Corps headquarters and districts to provide Congress with four-year work plans and budgets on an annual basis, which senators say will lead to the authorization of more projects.
Like the Senate bill, the House bill would require the National Academy to study the current economic and budgetary analysis used by the Army Corps in determining which projects to submit to lawmakers for authorization.
The House bill directs the corps to better account for its backlog, requiring the agency to submit a detailed account of needed, unfunded projects.
The House bill largely focuses on Army Corps programs and authorizations. Unlike the Senate bill, it does not include a two-year extension of EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, which provides low-interest loans to municipalities to help repair water infrastructure.
In a statement, DeFazio celebrated that the bill includes language to ensure the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will actually be used for harbor maintenance, rather than being used to balance other parts of the budget.
"Unlocking the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is key to ensuring we're not just adding to the $100 billion dollar backlog of projects at the Corps of Engineers, but are actually using existing funds to make real investments in our Nation's ports, harbors and waterways," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/18/stories/1060082145
-
Al Gore Sees Bipartisanship Returning in Fight on Climate Change
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan and Dina Bass
Climate change used to be a bipartisan issue, and legislators in Congress are getting closer to finding the center on environmental issues again despite the Trump administration’s efforts to halt progress, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore said.
“Even people who don’t like to use the term ‘climate crisis,’ they say, ‘Well, this weather’s sure getting weird,’” Gore said May 17 at the Bloomberg Sustainable Business Summit in Seattle. “The scale of the climate crisis is far beyond what people can comprehend—areas around the world will become uninhabitable and will see a large influx of climate refugees.”
Gore reminded the audience that the U.S. is still technically part of the Paris Agreement on climate change, as it will take years to complete the withdrawal announced by President Donald Trump. The former vice president highlighted the efforts of the bipartisan “Noah’s ark” climate solutions caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.
“We are very close to a governing majority on climate in the House and the Senate,” said Gore, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with a United Nations panel on the environment for raising awareness of the threat from climate change.
He also endorsed a ballot initiative in Washington state that would create a state-wide pollution tax to protect the environment. The measure will be up for a vote in November.
Gore, who is chairman of Generation Investment Management, a sustainability-focused investment firm he co-founded in 2004 with former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive David Blood, said he sees great opportunity in business and politicians continuing to push for a greener economy.
“Our view is that the world is in the early stages of a sustainability revolution that has the impact and scale of industrial revolution at the speed of the digital revolution,” Gore said. “We are going to succeed at the sustainability revolution and for those that doubt we have the political will to accomplish it—remember—political will is also a renewable resource.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/al-gore-sees-bipartisanship-returning-in-fight-on-climate-change
-
Three Republicans Join Climate Change Caucus
May 18, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By John Bowden
Three House Republicans have joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers dedicated to addressing the threat posed by climate change.
Reps. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), Pete Roskam (R-Ill.) and Erik Paulsen (R-Wis.) joined the Climate Solutions Caucus this week alongside two Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Elliot Engel (N.Y.) and Ron Kind (Wis.), bringing the total number of lawmakers in the caucus to 78.
The group, which is split evenly among Republicans and Democrats, released a statement saying members were excited to see the group growing in an election year. Paulsen filled a slot vacated by Rep. Pat Meehan (R-Pa.), who resigned earlier this year.
"I’m grateful these new members are willing to step up and turn their concern into action by joining and welcome their valuable input," said Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), the caucus chair.
MacArthur, whose district represents parts of southern New Jersey, said in his own statement that climate change poses a major threat to his district's coastal economy.
"Climate change and other environmental issues directly impact our area and our South Jersey economy. I am proud to join the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus to find practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face," he wrote.
The three Republicans joining the caucus are all facing difficult reelection races in November, with Democrats making them top targets in the midterm elections.
Roskam and Paulsen's districts are both listed by the Cook Political Reportas toss-up races, while MacArthur's district is listed as leaning Republican.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388354-three-republicans-join-climate-change-caucus
-
Trump Order Rescinds Carbon Emissions Limits for Agencies
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Federal agencies are no longer required to meet greenhouse gas emission targets set by the Obama administration, according to a White House executive order.
The new order also tells agencies to identify other environment and energy policies to replace or modify.
The executive order, issued May 17, revokes President Barack Obama’s executive order that directed federal agencies to set and meet greenhouse gas emissions targets. The Obama order also set specific energy and water efficiency use target and goals for greater use of renewable energy in federal buildings by 2025.
The Trump order makes no mention of climate change. It directs agency heads to report to the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality to track and report on the greenhouse emissions, but lists no specific targets for reducing them.
That council currently has no chairman. The White House in February withdrew the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, who questioned mainstream climate science.
The Trump order also tasks the heads of the departments of Agriculture and Energy, General Services Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency to review government guidance related to energy and environmental performance and to develop a plan and a timeline to “modify, replace, or rescind such guidance, as necessary.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-order-rescinds-carbon-emissions-limits-for-agencies
-
Relief From Emissions Limits Could Mean More Agency Spending
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith and Rebecca Kern
Federal agencies no longer have to meet comprehensive Obama-era greenhouse gas, energy conservation, and renewable electricity targets—and that could mean fewer dollars saved, efficiency advocates said.
President Donald Trump in a May 17 executive order revoked a 2015 executive orderthat directed federal agencies to set and meet greenhouse gas emissions targets, and a series of robust requirements to reduce energy and water use and to increase use of renewable power and clean transportation. Trump’s order instead directs agencies to meet only the existing statutory requirements for energy conservation and renewable energy.
The Trump order replaces President Barack Obama’s approach, which strongly emphasized the responsibility of agencies to lead in combating climate change. The May 17 order, by contrast, makes no mention of climate change and doesn’t set any specific targets for agencies beyond what is already required by laws like the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
Supporters of the Obama order said the Trump administration’s move isn’t only a step back on climate policy but also on fiscal responsibility.
“Quite simply put, this is a terrible business decision that will waste taxpayer dollars,” Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environment policy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment in a statement.
“The previous efficiency targets were reducing energy, water, and waste costs at one of the biggest businesses in the world, the US Federal Government,” added Goldfuss, who served as managing director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality for the last two years of the Obama administration.
‘Welcome Change’Critics of the Obama administration, however, are praising Trump’s move. They argue that the Obama order stretched agency energy conservation and emissions targets beyond what was required by statute.
The May 17 order shifts the focus from climate to a stronger emphasis on using energy in a way that’s economically efficient, Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy & Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, said.
“This is a welcome change, as is the focus on fulfilling requirements enacted by Congress rather than on meeting goals set arbitrarily by the president,” he told Bloomberg Environment in an emailed statement.
Expired RequirementsBut many of the energy use requirements that Congress set for federal agencies have expired, Elizabeth Noll, deputy director of congressional and external affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment in a statement.
For example, the 2005 Energy Policy Act required federal agencies to reduce energy consumption in its buildings by 30 percent below 2003 levels by 2015, but it doesn’t set any requirements beyond that year.
The Trump order “is an environmental rollback masquerading as a pro-efficiency policy,” Noll added.
Broader ImpactWeaker or nonexistent renewable energy targets for federal agencies also could have an impact broader than the agencies themselves, Luke Bassett, associate director of domestic energy and environment policy at the Center for American Progress, told Bloomberg Environment.
Many federal facilities, particularly military installments and Energy Department labs, are located in remote places and are the largest consumer of electricity in that market, according to Bassett. Thus, as those facilities transition to more renewable power, it shifts the entire electricity market of the region.
The Obama administration’s approach “was an effort to use the purchasing power [of the government] and send a message that renewable energy is doable and improves the environment,” he said.
Energy Department data show that federal agencies saved about $1.3 billion between fiscal years 2008 and 2016 by reducing energy consumption in agency building, consistent with the Obama-era and statutory requirements, Bassett said.
White House VacancyThe Trump order calls on agencies to track and report a number of metrics, including energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions to the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
But the council currently has no chair. The White House in February withdrew the nomination of Kathleen Hartnett White, who drew sharp pushback in Congress and from environmental groups for her controversial views on climate science.
The Trump order also tasks the heads of the departments of Agriculture and Energy, General Services Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency to review government guidance related to energy and environmental performance and to develop a plan and a timeline to “modify, replace, or rescind such guidance, as necessary.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/relief-from-emissions-limits-could-mean-more-agency-spending
-
States Aim To Revive 2015 Ozone NAAQS Suit, Fearing No Reconsideration
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
States opposed to the Obama EPA's 2015 rule tightening the ozone air standard are asking a federal appeals court to revive currently stayed litigation over the standard, saying the Trump administration appears to have backed off possible plans to reconsider the standard and instead proceed with a regular Clean Air Act-mandated review of the limit.
Citing reporting by Inside EPA, a coalition of 10 states tells the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that because EPA appears to be pushing ahead with a review of the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in lieu of reconsideration, the legal fight over the 2015 limit should resume. The states say that unless the case is revived they “will effectively lose their right to contest an unlawful NAAQS.”
The states in a May 18 motion ask to end the abeyance for consolidated litigation over the 2015 NAAQS, Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, which has been on hold while EPA decides whether to reconsider the 2015 rule. Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin signed the motion.
But Inside EPA reported in March that the Trump administration appears to be backing away from a formal reconsideration to weaken the standard. Instead, EPA air chief William Wehrum is aiming to speed up the next Clean Air Act-mandated NAAQS review as a potential vehicle to weaken the limit, sources said.
The states argue that if the D.C. Circuit does not end abeyance in the case, it will deprive them of the chance to challenge the 2015 decision on its merits because EPA might simply fold the reconsideration into its pending review of the ozone standard. They say this is “precisely what happened with the 2008 Ozone NAAQS” and that keeping the case on hold “would risk the “same errors, particularly with respect to uncontrollable background ozone.”
The states ask for either an immediate end to abeyance, or a deadline of Aug. 1 for abeyance to end, “such that oral argument in September 2018 is possible.” The filing notes that EPA opposes the motion, the states say, but environmentalists support the motion and industry litigants take no position.
The Obama EPA in October 2015 tightened the ozone NAAQS to 70 parts per billion (ppb), down from the 2008 limit of 75 ppb, which itself tightened the standard from the 1997 limit expressed as 84 ppb.
Ozone Litigation
States and coal mining company Murray Energy sued, seeking to overturn the standard as unlawfully tough, while environmentalists are both intervening in the suit to defend EPA's NAAQS from these attacks, and also seeking an even tougher ozone limit. When the Trump administration announced its plan to reconsider the limit, the court granted the agency's request to put the NAAQS litigation on hold pending the outcome of that process.
But the states note that EPA has taken several steps toward implementing the 2015 NAAQS -- such as court-ordered designations for which areas are attaining the limit. “These designations begin the process of imposing crushing regulations -- precisely the outcome that the State Petitioners sought to avoid,” the motion says.
Wehrum and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have committed the agency to an expedited regular review of the ozone standard, which under Clean Air Act deadlines should be issued by Oct. 1, 2020 -- five years after the prior ozone NAAQS rule. The faster process will shorten scientific review steps, according to a May 9 memo from Pruitt. It will further fall under EPA's new policy of using only scientific studies that rely on publicly available data, a step seen by critics as an effort to exclude air quality studies that suggest the need for tougher air standards.
But the states in their motion fear any reconsideration decision will be folded into whatever EPA decides to propose for the NAAQS review. As a result, they call on the court to proceed to argument, noting that the case is already fully briefed. The states say the 2015 standard is too tough because, among other failings, it does not take into account naturally-occurring or foreign-sourced “background” ozone that state regulators cannot control.
“EPA has already taken more than a year to conduct its review -- not a new rulemaking, merely a review of whether to embark on that process. Despite this fact, the compliance burden of the 2015 Rule is already forcing States to operate under the requirements set forth in the 2015 Rule,” the states say. They note EPA has issued almost all “nonattainment” designations for areas not meeting the 2015 standard, starting the clock for states to craft plans to comply.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-aim-revive-2015-ozone-naaqs-suit-fearing-no-reconsideration
-
Here's How Climate Factors into Trump's Talks with Kim
May 21, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The anticipated meeting between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un could put the former real estate tycoon eye to eye with a reviled autocrat who appears more in line with global thinking on one issue: climate change.
North Korea is a party to the Paris Agreement, the 2015 pact that Trump plans to withdraw the United States from despite an uproar from allies around the world.
North Korea — whose carbon emissions rank in the bottom half of nations worldwide — put forward a hefty commitment to cut its greenhouse gases 37.4 percent compared with 1990 levels. And as Trump was pulling the United States out of the agreement last June, Kim described Trump's decision as "the height of egotism."
Experts doubt the climate pact will play a role in the historic meeting between Trump and Kim scheduled for next month in Singapore. But if the summit occurs, they say, it could have a negative effect on global warming.
That's because if sanctions against North Korea are lifted, the hermit nation's coal could flow onto the world market, with the bulk of it ending up in South Korea, Japan and China. Also, the United States and its allies once again are offering to help North Korea provide electricity to its people — a sweetener that has been used in the past and that would likely be accomplished with fossil fuel technology that would take advantage of North Korea's domestic coal reserves.
The country has an estimated 100 billion metric tons of coal in reserve, and exporting it is an economic mainstay. Last year, the U.N. Security Council responded to North Korea's missile tests by slapping a $400 million annual cap on North Korean coal exports.
Ming Wan, a professor of government and politics at George Mason University, said the loss of access to the Chinese market has been particularly painful for Pyongyang. China had been increasing its purchases of North Korean coal in recent years. Reuters reported last week that North Korean traders have responded to hopes that sanctions might be lifted soon by selling coal to Chinese buyers at cut-rate prices and stockpiling it for them inside North Korea.
The relaxation of sanctions would almost certainly be part of any deal to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear arsenal.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo floated a related idea last week when he said during an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation" that North Korea could get help revamping its own electricity infrastructure if the talks go well next month.
Most ordinary North Koreans live without power during the day, despite the country's status as a net energy exporter. That energy poverty kept North Korea's greenhouse gas emissions at 63.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2013, while South Korea put out 673.5 MtCO2e — more than 10 times as much.
Pompeo said if North Korea denuclearized, U.S. capital would flow into sectors of its economy ranging from agriculture to power infrastructure.
"Our entrepreneurs, our risk-takers, our capital providers" would finance this, he said. "Not our taxpayers."
The United States and its allies have tried in the past to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear arsenal in exchange for energy aid, but those efforts always fell flat.
President Clinton in 1994 offered Pyongyang two light-water nuclear reactors and deliveries of fuel oil in exchange for denuclearization — a deal known as the Agreed Framework. Trump's current homeland security adviser, John Bolton, helped to scuttle it in 2002 as undersecretary of State for President George W. Bush.
Ming said the bargain failed and the reactors never arrived.
In 2005, it was South Korea's turn to offer its northern neighbor electricity in exchange for surrendering its arsenal. The talks faltered then, too.
"Historically, the energy issue has been at the heart of all the nuclear negotiations, because it's always the excuse any country building a nuclear reactor invokes for why they wanted a reactor," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. "And it's often not legitimate, but it's potentially legitimate, so you have to somewhat play along."
Pompeo offered no details about why he believes U.S. energy investment would flow into North Korea if sanctions were lifted, and the State Department's Bureau of Energy and Natural Resources did not respond to requests for comment.
North Korea is one of the most unstable and autocratic nations on Earth, led by a dictator with the ability to seize any assets that cross his border. Pompeo didn't mention a role for financial assistance from the Overseas Private Investment Corp. or another U.S. agency.
"We all believe in the free market, and some people want to believe in its magic more than others," said O'Hanlon. "I tend to believe in the free market, but I don't think it's going to go to North Korea anytime soon with American investors salivating at the prospect of making money somehow in that remote part of the world. I just don't think that's realistic."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also appearing on "Face the Nation" a week ago, said that exchanging aid for a denuclearized North Korea would be the "best money we ever spent." But the Trump administration has gutted aid in its first two budget requests to Congress.
"The Trump administration is not a big believer in foreign aid, so why are they going to be all of a sudden generous toward North Korea when they're not generous toward much nicer people in developing countries in Africa and South Asia and elsewhere?" Graham said.
There have been efforts for decades to institute an Asia Super Grid that would serve the Korean Peninsula and its neighbors, Japan and China. Son Masayoshi, CEO of SoftBank Group, has floated that effort as one way to bring power to the energy-starved North Korean people.
Jane Nakano, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Trump administration could contribute to that.
"I think the best role for the United States would be some kind of multilateral initiative that could bring U.S. commercial expertise to the table together with other countries that are willing to invest and contribute to developing energy infrastructure in North Korea," she said.
Still, it's not clear whether federal or private investment would be enough to entice Kim to give up the nuclear arsenal that props up his regime.
"My view is that this is less an issue of [North Korean] disinterest and more an issue of the deals themselves," said Richard Nephew, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.
Energy assistance is "something the North wants, but not at any price," Nephew said. Kim has indicated that he sees the fall of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2003 as a cautionary example of what befalls leaders who give up their nuclear programs.
If energy assistance comes "as part of a deal the North can more generally accept, then I think this would be a valuable incentive," Nephew said. "But the linchpin to me is what kinds of nuclear and military concessions we will require."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/21/stories/1060082225
-
Impatient States Want to Resume Ozone Litigation
May 18, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of Republican-leaning states is moving to restart litigation over EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard that has been on hold for more than a year.
In a tartly worded motion filed this afternoon, lawyers for Wisconsin, Texas and eight other states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to either "lift the abeyance immediately" or else let it expire at the beginning of August.
At the Trump administration's request, the court had agreed to the abeyance in April 2017 — barely a week before oral arguments were to be held — to give EPA the chance to reconsider its position in defense of the 70-parts-per-billion standard (Greenwire, April 12, 2017). Since then, the agency has given no sign in quarterly status reports of when its review will come to an end and — under pressure from an order by a separate court — has almost completed the area attainment designations that start the clock for bringing problem areas into compliance.
"These designations begin the process of imposing crushing regulations — precisely the outcome that the state petitioners sought to avoid when they filed their petitions for review more than two years ago," today's motion says. Without relief, the motion adds, they will effectively lose their right to contest an "unlawful" standard.
"It is difficult to reconcile the agency's simultaneous implementation of the rule with its boilerplate 'updates' to this court purporting to be considering reconsideration."
Those states had challenged the 2015 standard partly on the grounds that EPA had failed to adequately address "the peak effect of uncontrollable sources on peak days," thus undercutting states' ability to ensure compliance, according to the motion. An array of other states, industry trade groups and environmental organizations are also entangled in the consolidated litigation, with some plaintiffs arguing that the 70 ppb limit is too strict and others contending it's too weak.
The environmental groups support the bid to resume legal proceedings, the industry plaintiffs take no position and EPA is opposed, the motion says. The other states signed on to the filing are Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Utah.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems for people with emphysema and other chronic respiratory diseases. EPA tightened the standard to 70 ppb in October 2015, saying the change was needed to adequately protect the public in light of research on ozone's health effects. The previous standard, set in 2008, was 75 ppb.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/18/stories/1060082151
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested