Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/20/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Stocks Fall Moderately Amid China Trade Dispute
Jun 19, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US-listed chemical stocks fell moderately on Tuesday with the general stock market after President Donald Trump threatened more tariffs against China. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs Vex Hill; Lobbyist Says 'Nightmare Waiting to Happen'
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Christa Marshall
President Trump's high-speed trade fight is prompting questions from K Street to Capitol Hill about the political fallout Republicans may face in coming weeks and months. -
(ACC Mentioned) Recycling Fallout Uncertain as Tariff Battle Continues
Jun 19, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
The U.S. will enact tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products beginning July 6. Vowing retaliation, China released its own list of U.S. products to target in July. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Says Separation Isn't His Policy. Here Are All the Times His Team Said It Was.
Jun 19, 2018 | NBC News
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
...With just one big exception — Florida — Democrats are outspending Republicans over the airwaves (TV and radio) in the most competitive Senate contests, per data from Advertising Analytics. The dollar amounts below are through June 18, 2018... -
Observers Brace for Trump Reorganization Plan with EPA Impact Unclear
Jun 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The Trump administration is expected to release as soon as June 21 a broad plan for reorganizing the federal government, though some observers doubt the plan will spur broad proposed changes at EPA, such as closing of regional offices, despite calls from some to do so. -
Barrasso Promises to Bring Pruitt to EPW in August
Jun 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) announced today that embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, currently facing more than a dozen federal investigations, will testify before his committee in August. -
Trump: Axing Obama Ocean Policy Will Boost Energy Security
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Citing the potential for increased energy development from U.S. waters, President Trump last night walked back an Obama-era ocean policy that aimed to improve coordination on coastal management. -
Natural Gas Export Boom Brings Challenges for Top Energy Regulator
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The top U.S. energy regulator is hiring private contractors for the first time to help clear a growing backlog of LNG export applications. -
Refuge Drilling Opponents Submit Nearly 700k Comments to BLM
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Opponents of the Trump administration's plans to sell oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge submitted almost 700,000 comments yesterday demanding that federal regulators block drilling in the northeast corner of Alaska. -
House GOP Budget Plan Calls for More Strategic Oil Reserve Sales
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Republicans are calling for an additional sale of 100 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. -
Fragile Deal Still Intact for Energy, Water Bill in Senate
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Dean Scott
A fragile deal between Republicans and Democrats is intact—for now—as the Senate moves forward on a bill that would provide more than $43 billion in funding to the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers for the coming fiscal year. -
EPA Stands Pat on Chemical Spill Regulations, Despite Suit
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The status quo will likely remain for companies that store chemicals in above-ground tanks. -
Perry's 'National Security' Push for Grid Draws Skepticism on the Hill
Jun 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Nixon
The Trump administration is having a hard time winning over skeptics to its claim that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants poses a national security threat. -
Houston Produces a Lot of Chlorine so Responders Need to Be Prepared
Jun 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Andrea Leinfelder
Emergency responders examined the valves as a trainer pointed to cracks where chlorine could leak from the railcar. Their first task, should they be called to a leak, would be tightening these valves. -
'Secret Science' Policy's Impact on Pending NAAQS Review May Be Muted
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposed rule barring the agency from using confidential data in rulemakings might not have as dramatic an impact on pending national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as many fear because some of the most influential air pollution studies... -
States in the Dark About EPA Effort to Tackle Upwind Air Pollution (1)
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is keeping mum about its plans to address emissions of smog-forming pollutants that prevent downwind states from meeting federal ozone pollution requirements. -
CEQ Issues Advance Notice for Sweeping Update of NEPA Regulations
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on a long-anticipated and potentially sweeping update of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing rules... -
Bipartisan State Leaders Seek Long-Term Carbon Capture Certainty
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A bipartisan group of states, led by Govs. Matt Mead (R-Wyo.) and Steve Bullock (D-Mont.), is teaming up to get more carbon capture projects off the ground. -
New Group, With Conservative Credentials, Plans Push for a Carbon Tax
Jun 20, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
Proponents of a market-oriented plan to fight climate change by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and giving the revenue to American taxpayers are starting a campaign to run advertisements as early as this fall and introduce legislation in Congress as early as next year. -
EPA Sued For Permitting More Air Pollution Near National Parks
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is facing a lawsuit for allowing factories and power plants that are expanding or constructing new facilities near national parks and wilderness areas to emit more pollution.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Stocks Fall Moderately Amid China Trade Dispute
Jun 19, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US-listed chemical stocks fell moderately on Tuesday with the general stock market after President Donald Trump threatened more tariffs against China.
On Monday, Trump asked the US Trade Representative to find $200bn worth of Chinese imports on which the US could impose 10% tariffs.
Trump said he was responding to China's proposal to impose tariffs on $50bn worth of US imports. The Chinese proposal was in retaliation against a US proposal to impose tariffs on $50bn worth of goods.
Both proposals target several petrochemicals.
Following the tit-for-tat tariff threats, stock markets in Europe and Asia traded lower.
In the US, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 1.15%. The S&P 500 fell by 0.40%.
While the two indices were down moderately, neither have broken the highs reached at the end of January, illustrating the pressure that the trade dispute has imposed on the market.
Nonetheless, market participants and even some chemical executives have had a muted response to the proposed tariffs.
They say the tariffs will alter trade flows, but they will not alter overall demand for petrochemicals. The US and China exports will remain the same. They will just send shipments to different countries.
Trade groups in the US have been much more alarmed. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has said that the US industry has been thrown on to the front lines of a trade war with China.
In the stock markets, the biggest winner was US-based fertilizer producer CF Industries, which rose by 3.07%. The biggest loser was chlor-alkali and epoxy-resin producer Olin, which fell by 4.26%.
The table below lists the performance of the US listed chemical stocks followed by ICIS.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/06/19/10232934/us-stocks-fall-moderately-amid-china-trade-dispute/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs Vex Hill; Lobbyist Says 'Nightmare Waiting to Happen'
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey, Geof Koss and Christa Marshall
President Trump's high-speed trade fight is prompting questions from K Street to Capitol Hill about the political fallout Republicans may face in coming weeks and months.
The White House in recent days has doubled down on imposing billions of dollars' worth of import tariffs, triggering talks of a looming trade war and retaliatory threats on U.S. exports of agriculture, seafood, oil, coal, solar panels, batteries and nuclear reactors.
If those threats and punitive measures backfire, some observers and politicians believe the farming and energy sectors — and the Republican lawmakers those industries are tied to — will face the consequences.
"This is a nightmare waiting to happen for this administration," said one Washington, D.C.-based trade policy lawyer and lobbyist who asked not to be named. "The steel and aluminum tariffs are hitting the supply chain, and now these retaliatory tariffs are hitting finished goods. Politically, that's a dangerous combination."
Trump's aggressive position has won support from lawmakers like Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who told the Dayton Daily News last week that tariffs make clear "the U.S. will not allow China to cheat Americans."
The president yesterday spoke at length about the need to take a tough stance on countries like China and allies like Canada, blaming deficits on decades of unfair trade.
"We can no longer be the stupid country," Trump said at the National Federation of Independent Business' 75th anniversary celebration in Washington. "We want to be the smart country."
But the whiplash strategy has also riled manufacturers, farmers, oil and gas producers, and even coal companies now eyeing Chinese retaliation. And while some of the loudest opposition has come from the Corn Belt, a key Trump constituency, Republicans and Democrats from energy- and agriculture-rich states are also publicly fretting over the effects on their districts.
Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp told E&E News yesterday that her home state of North Dakota faces a triple whammy with effects on agriculture, the oil patch and its manufacturing hub that produces equipment for farming and construction — costs tied to steel now subjected to tariffs.
Heitkamp, who has often sided with the president, also voiced concern about China's threat to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. crude, given the Asian nation is the third largest market for American crude.
"Can that be displaced by other sources, and the answer is yes," Heitkamp said.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said yesterday he's communicated his concerns over Trump's trade policies directly to the president and pledged to work with the administration on the best way forward.
"When you're in the middle of a trade war, that's what happens, you get retaliatory techniques and it hurts the economy," Barrasso said.
Other Republicans are mulling legislation and waiting to see what happens next. Expressing concern for jobs in his gas-rich state of Louisiana, GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy said he's open to legislation for tackling the tariff issue but wants to see any final language.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) yesterday said she planned to meet with her staff to assess the cumulative effect of Trump's trade moves on her home state.
Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs could significantly raise the cost of the natural gas pipeline Alaska wants to build from its North Slope, while also threatening cost overruns for military infrastructure projects planned in the state, she noted. Furthermore, a trade war threatens Alaska's seafood industry.
"We in Alaska don't export a lot, but our market is Asia, and in so many respects our market is China," she told E&E News. "So this could have considerable impact."
The political reality was summed up by Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, who leads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the national fundraising arm dedicated to expanding Republican ranks in the Senate. Gardner at first said he was concerned about the effect on Americans — and not votes — before acknowledging a direct correlation.
"If people are feeling it in their pocketbook, that matters," he said.
'Downright scary'
How much — and when — people might feel it in their pocketbooks is an open question, but the threat of a trade war has already triggered a grass-roots reaction among energy and ag interests.
After Trump announced $50 billion in new fees last week, China retaliated with planned 25 percent tariffs on dozens of agricultural products, including apples, corn and soybeans. China is the largest market for U.S. soybeans. One economist told The Des Moines Register the recent round of tariffs could cost Iowa farmers up to $624 million.
Brian Kuehl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, called the farming threat "downright scary" in a statement. The nonpartisan group plans to hold town hall meetings across the country and launched a series of ads opposing tariffs with the U.S. Apple Association in Washington, D.C., and in agriculture states.
Farmers for Free Trade is part of a larger coalition of manufacturers, retailers, technology companies, agribusinesses and other supply chain components calling on Congress to take a more aggressive oversight role of White House actions, despite reluctance from the GOP to directly challenge Trump.
Ahead of a Senate Finance Committee hearing on the issue today, more than four dozen industry groups including the American Petroleum Institute, American Chemistry Council, American Exploration and Production Council, and Independent Petroleum Association of America called for help earlier this week.
The coalition warned in a letter to the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the panel, as well as the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, that a "unilateral use of tariffs by the Executive Branch is upsetting the historic balance between Congressional and Executive powers" and called for more oversight.
The exact effect of Trump's policies largely hinge on how state economies fare going forward, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
Kondik noted that then-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush underperformed across the heartland in the 1988 presidential elections largely because of lagging economies in many farm states in the latter years of the Reagan administration.
"In other words, if this trade war develops and if it damages the agricultural economy, there could be political consequences in 2018, 2020 or both, and that could extend to other types of states who see economic troubles that can be traced back to certain tariffs," Kondik said.
Solar fight
Solar tariffs implemented by Trump are also expected to be felt in many purple states, including North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado and Florida.
Trump imposed a 30 percent tariff on imported solar cells and modules in January set to decline over four years. The president last week also floated an additional 25 percent fee on solar components from China (E&E News PM, June 15).
The president's supporters say that the tariffs are rejuvenating the solar manufacturing sector, including in swing states. In March for example, China-based JinkoSolar announced that the opening of its first U.S. factory in Jacksonville, Fla., would create 200 direct jobs and support "hundreds" of additional jobs in shipping and related industries. The company tied its decision to tariffs.
Stefan Schauss, CEO of Canadian-based CellCube Energy Storage Systems Inc., said in an interview today that the trade situation makes it more likely his company will build an assembly plant in the U.S., even though its vanadium battery technology is not currently covered by tariffs.
"We don't know what's coming next," he said.
Yet the solar industry says that any job gains from new manufacturing will be far offset by job losses around the country. The Solar Energy Industries Association has projected 23,000 jobs could disappear this year alone.
In states like Nevada, the tariff issue is not high on the radar yet of voters but could have negative effects on Trump and various Republicans linked to him, considering broad support in the state for expansion of renewables, said Eric Herzik, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno.
"This is an issue with some legs and more legs in some places like Nevada than in other states. It won't displace more major concerns such as the economy or immigration, but could chip away at Republican support among nonpartisan voters," Herzik said.
At the same time, the tariff issue isn't easily divided by party. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), for instance, is the co-sponsor of the first legislation in the Senate to repeal Trump's solar tariffs.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/20/stories/1060085123
-
(ACC Mentioned) Recycling Fallout Uncertain as Tariff Battle Continues
Jun 19, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
The U.S. will enact tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products beginning July 6. Vowing retaliation, China released its own list of U.S. products to target in July.
The revised U.S. tariff proposal contains 818 products to be hit with 25 percent tariffs, down from more than 1,300 that were proposed in April. The changes came after a variety of stakeholders submitted comments to the U.S. Trade Representative’s office in recent weeks.
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) noted in a release that several products related to recycling machinery that were on the proposed list have been removed in the final document.
“As China and the United States continue to spar back and forth with new tariffs being imposed on key imports on goods from each country, the recycling industry has largely been spared,” ISRI stated.
Still, a host of machinery components will be subject to tariffs. For example, machinery for grinding, sanding, polishing, extruding, injection-molding, blow-molding and a variety of other processing activities will be subject to new duties. In addition, virgin resins including PE, PP, PS and PVC will be covered. And magnets, which are commonly used in sortation equipment, were also included in the final tariff list.
Paper manufacturing equipment will also be hit. For instance, the tariffs will cover machinery “for making paper pulp, paper or paperboard,” and a number of components that are included in such equipment.
In comments submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative in May, ISRI noted that recycling companies typically experience high equipment turnover, and that “the vast majority of these parts – up to 85 percent for crushing and grinding parts, for example – are supplied from China.”
The Chinese government on Saturday issued its own list of $50 billion in retaliatory 25 percent tariffs that will take effect the same day as the U.S. tariffs, July 6.
The Chinese tariffs on imports from the U.S. cover a range of materials including chemicals and energy products, as well as medical equipment, soybean and agricultural products, automobiles and more.
The Chinese list includes various types of virgin plastic, according to an online translation.Potential impacts on plastics pricing
Some industry observers have noted tariff ripples could affect virgin plastic manufacturing in the U.S. That fact could have a bearing on the value of both prime and recovered resins.
A recent market report found there will “likely be a dramatic increase in the production of virgin resins during the next three years, leading to lower, possibly much lower, prices.” If virgin plastics supply increases and prices fall, recycled resin producers would likely see the value of their products drop as well.
But the tariffs may swing that market phenomenon, with duties potentially slowing development of major projects planned in the U.S. and making existing operations less profitable.
The American Chemistry Council responded to the Trump Administration tariff announcement with concerns.
“We anticipate significant disruptions to supply chain operations, offshoring of production, and termination of production altogether due the sudden, uneven playing field that duties would create in the global marketplace,” the ACC wrote. “As much as half of $194 billion in planned chemical industry investment could be vulnerable to delay or abandonment.”
Market research firm ICIS analyzed possible changes the tariffs from the Chinese could create in the global flow of resin.
“Rising demand for products such as polyethylene (PE) will have to be met, regardless of tariffs,” the firm wrote. Under one scenario ICIS examined, “Chinese customers would replace U.S. imports with PE shipments from other countries. The U.S. will then export its PE to customers that saw their resin shipments diverted to China.”
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/06/19/recycling-fallout-uncertain-as-tariff-battle-continues/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Says Separation Isn't His Policy. Here Are All the Times His Team Said It Was.
Jun 19, 2018 | NBC News
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
On Monday, President Donald Trump blamed Democrats for the separation of migrant children from their families.
“If the Democrats would sit down instead of obstructing we could have something done very quickly. Good for the children, good for the country, good for the world, it could take place quickly,” he said.
Hours later, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen denied that the separation policy was meant to deter undocumented immigrants from crossing the border. “Congress is asking those of us who enforce the law to turn our backs on the law and not enforce the law,” she said in defending the separation practice. “It's not an answer. The answer is to fix the laws.”
But here are all of the times we found when the Trump administration said this was THEIR policy and that it was meant to DETER undocumented immigrants.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “I have put in place a ‘zero tolerance’ policy.”“I have put in place a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border. If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law.” (Speech in San Diego, California, May 7, 2018)
White House chief of staff John Kelly: “It could be a tough deterrent.”
NPR: Family separation stands as a pretty tough deterrent.
Kelly: It could be a tough deterrent — would be a tough deterrent. A much faster turnaround on asylum seekers.
NPR: Even though people say that's cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children?
Kelly: I wouldn't put it quite that way. The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long. (NPR interview, May 11, 2018)
Kelly: “Yes, I am considering it in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network.”
CNN: Are Department of Homeland Security personnel going to separate the children from their moms and dads?
Kelly: We have tremendous experience in dealing with unaccompanied minors. We have turned them over to HHS and they do a very, very good job of putting them in kind of foster care or linking them up with parents or with family members in the United States. Yes, I am considering it in order to deter more movement along this terribly dangerous network. I am considering exactly that. They will be well cared for as we deal with their parents. (CNN interview, March 6, 2017)
White House aide Stephen Miller: “The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”“‘It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.’ ... Privately, Mr. Miller argued that bringing back ‘zero tolerance’ would be a potent tool in a severely limited arsenal of strategies for stopping migrants from flooding across the border.” (New York Times, June 16, 2018)
Sessions: “Hopefully people will get the message … and not break across the border unlawfully.”
Fox News: Are you trying to deter people from bringing children or minors across this dangerous journey? Is that part of what this operation is about?
Sessions: Fundamentally, we are enforcing the law…
Fox News: Are you considering this a deterrent?
Sessions: … Yes, hopefully people will get the message and come through the border at the port of entry and not break across the border unlawfully. (Fox News interview, June 18, 2018)
POLLS: TWO-THIRDS OF AMERICANS AND VOTERS OPPOSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S SEPARATION POLICY
If you’re a politician who wants to see tougher border, you should be angry right now at Trump, because he’s making that a harder reality.
On Monday, a CNN poll found 67 percent of Americans disapprove of the Trump administration’s policy to separate migrant children from their families, with 28 percent approving (including 58 percent of Republican respondents).
Those numbers were nearly identical to a Quinnipiac survey, also released Monday, showing 66 percent of U.S. voters opposing the policy (and 55 percent of GOP voters supporting it).
This reminds us a bit of the gay-marriage debate: Ten or 15 years ago, you could have said that you support gay people, but you just don’t want to see them marry. But once marriage turned into the litmus test, that same person didn’t want to be one the side of the “haters.”
Are we seeing this play out in the immigration debate, with the well-being of migrant families turning into the litmus test in the immigration debate? We’ll find out when Trump is set to speak to House Republicans on immigration today at 5:40 p.m. ET, and when the House is likely to vote on immigration legislation Thursday.
NBC’s Leigh Ann Caldwell and Frank Thorp: “The president is traveling to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to address House Republicans about their attempt to solve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program, but the separation of families is likely to take center stage, especially as many lawmakers continue to hear from constituents overwhelmingly opposed to the policy. Still, the numerous solutions that have been floated have gained little consensus, with Republicans and Democrats at odds on the details. And members of both parties are frustrated and angry that the president has put them in the position of fixing a problem that he could already solve.”
By the way, who’s leading the charge to pass legislation in the Senate to keep undocumented immigrant families together? Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas — suggesting this Trump policy isn’t playing all that well in Texas.
NYT: TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION COMMENTS AREN’T “MAKING IT ANY EASIER” FOR AMERICA’S EUROPEAN PARTNERS
And Trump’s views on immigration aren’t just upending American politics — they’re also roiling Europe’s. The New York Times: “With a rift over migrants bringing German politics to a boil, the country’s feuding leaders scraped together a truce Monday on an issue that threatens to topple the fragile government. Then President Trump stepped in. ‘The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition,’ Mr. Trump said on Twitter, before falsely claiming that crime in Germany had risen because of immigration.”
“The migrant issue is a political wildfire in Europe. It has breathed new life into populist movements from Hungary to Austria to Italy. In Italy, the newly formed government coalition rose to power in part by drawing on anger about migration. It introduced its immigration policy last week by turning away a boat carrying more than 600 migrants from Africa. These forces are making it harder for European centrists to hold onto power — and as his comments made clear Monday, Mr. Trump is not making it any easier for the United States’ longtime partners.”
Just compare the last thing Trump tweeted about Germany (“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up”) with the last thing he tweeted about North Korea (“The denuclearization deal with North Korea is being praised and celebrated all over Asia. They are so happy!”).
MCCLATCHY: RUSSIAN BUYERS MADE 86 ALL-CASH SALES — TOTALING $109 MILLION — AT 10 TRUMP-BRANDED PROPERTIES
McClatchy: “Buyers connected to Russia or former Soviet republics made 86 all-cash sales — totaling nearly $109 million — at 10 Trump-branded properties in south Florida and New York City, according to a new analysis shared with McClatchy. Many of them made purchases using shell companies designed to obscure their identities.”
DEMS ARE OUTSPENDING REPUBLICANS OVER THE AIRWAVES IN THE KEY SENATE CONTESTS, BUT THERE’S ONE BIG EXCEPTION (FLORIDA)
With just one big exception — Florida — Democrats are outspending Republicans over the airwaves (TV and radio) in the most competitive Senate contests, per data from Advertising Analytics. The dollar amounts below are through June 18, 2018.
Arizona
Dem: $3.5 million ($2.6 million by Krysten Sinema's campaign)
GOP: $639,000 ($369,000 by One Nation)
Florida
Dem: $3.1 million ($2.3 million by Senate Majority PAC)
GOP: $17.2 million ($11 million by Rick Scott's campaign)
Indiana (since May 8 primary)
Dem: $2.0 million ($1.5 million by Senate Majority PAC)
GOP: $1.4 million ($770,000 by One Nation)
Missouri
Dem: $7.5 million ($4 million by Senate Majority PAC)
GOP: $4.3 million ($2.4 million by Americans for Prosperity)
Nevada
Dem: $2.7 million ($1.7 million by Jacky Rosen's campaign)
GOP: $1.0 million ($575,000 by American Chemistry Council)
North Dakota
Dem: $1.0 million ($330,000 by Heitkamp)
GOP: $938,000 ($422,000 by Americans for Prosperity)
Ohio (since May 8 primary)
Dem: $2.2 million (all by Sherrod Brown's campaign)
GOP: $332,000 (all by Jim Renacci's campaign)
Tennessee
Dem: $2.0 million (all by Phil Bredesen's campaign)
GOP: $18,000 ($15,000 by Marsha Blackburn's campaign)
West Virginia
Dem: $1.3 million ($758,000 by Senate Majority PAC)
GOP: $562,000 ($462,000 by One Nation)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-says-separation-isn-t-his-policy-here-are-all-n884616
-
Observers Brace for Trump Reorganization Plan with EPA Impact Unclear
Jun 19, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The Trump administration is expected to release as soon as June 21 a broad plan for reorganizing the federal government, though some observers doubt the plan will spur broad proposed changes at EPA, such as closing of regional offices, despite calls from some to do so.
The upcoming plan is being developed in response to a 2017 Trump administration executive order that set in motion a process for developing restructuring plans within the federal government to improve agencies' efficiencies in part by returning much of their power back to the states.
“There has never been a new administration [that has not tried to move] some part of the agency around,” says one former EPA official. However, the source acknowledges concerns over “malevolent” attacks on the agency by the Trump administration.
But the upcoming plan also comes amid a series of ethics scandals plaguing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, which could intensify skepticism around a plan that was already guaranteed to be viewed through a prism of relentless Trump administration political attacks on the agency, including proposals to cut its budget by as much as a third.
Congress has already refrained from endorsing the most extreme Trump administration proposals for budget cuts and other agency restructuring, raising questions as to what limits lawmakers could impose on any reorganization efforts that require congressional sign-off.
For example, Senate appropriators included language in their just-approved fiscal year 2019 spending bill for the agency that limits a proposed new round of staff buyouts.
And Pruitt earlier this year signaled a potential softening of his push for major staffing level cuts in Region 5 and at least one research laboratory slated for closure, telling House Appropriations Committee Democrats that the agency could moderate both plans -- although he stopped short of any pledge to increase staffing levels.
Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have suggested a host of steps that EPA and other agencies could take to limit their footprint, devolve power back to the states and curb programs that the group opposes, but some of their ideas are unlikely to fly on Capitol Hill.
In 2017, the group issued a report that called for closing EPA's regional offices and devolving to the states “all authority” to manage Superfund cleanups as well as enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Such ideas are unlikely to win support from lawmakers, especially those with Superfund or other contamination in their districts. And Pruitt appears to be opposed to some of those ideas given a series of steps he has taken to limit regions' powers and consolidate authority for major Superfund cleanup and water quality decisions in the Office of the Administrator.
Similarly, the Heritage Foundation's call to defund all EPA activity related to the agency's renewable fuels standard (RFS) -- which the group opposes for providing an unfair subsidy to a single industry -- will almost certainly not fly with Midwestern lawmakers.
Regional Offices
Also unlikely to pass muster are suggestions from Pruitt to close at least some EPA regions and replace them with offices in each of the 50 states.
“Some of those offices are located in red states,” the former EPA staffer notes.
And a conservative critic of the agency also faults any notion of creating new state offices as potential expansion of an agency that deregulatory advocates would prefer to shrink.
But another former agency official is bracing for the possibility that the Pruitt EPA -- whether as part of a reorganization plan or separate actions -- could take further steps to shrink the role of regional offices and then use that as a rationale for reducing staff in those offices.
“It would be much easier to lower the profile of regional offices, but without the talk of taking the box off the charts and making [such a] lightning rod [move],” the source says.
The source claims no insider knowledge of the upcoming reorganization plan but says that more broadly it bears watching to the extent it may serve as a means to codify or otherwise implement changed management practices at EPA.
Such efforts include the recently created Office of Continuous Improvement, which Pruitt unveiled to coordinate his goals for streamlining permitting and other processes, through use of Lean management systems, such as improved tracking of hundreds of agency performance metrics.
“What a reorganization might do is to make that official, and add to the staffing of it,” the source surmises.
One backer of reigning in EPA is tempering expectations for the reorganization plan, based in part on past reorganizations. “I expect we will end up tinkering around the margins,” the source says. “Reorganizations are a bit of a sucker's game.”
The source adds: “We need to have a single permitting agency. It probably shouldn't be EPA. But I doubt seriously that will ever happen.”
The second former EPA official adds that one issue that sometimes come up in prior talk of reorganization efforts is minimizing “stovepipes” at the agency related to specific media, such as air, water and waste, and says that in theory having some kind of new structure that is cross-media “would not be a bad thing.”
At the same time, the source that there can be limits to such efforts, in part because “you have to organize the work in some way,” and sometimes a seeming “silver bullet” that solves one organizational problem can create another.
And EPA union official John O'Grady in a June 13 conversation with reporters at the National Press Club raised concerns about any reorganization that proceeds without a workforce analysis, noting that according to the Government Accountability Office, EPA has not done such an analysis in at least two decades.
“What is the basis of the reorganization,” O'Grady said. “Can they show us how many people they truly need” and how it will benefit the public?
“Absent that I don't think [it] would be worth considering.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/observers-brace-trump-reorganization-plan-epa-impact-unclear
-
Barrasso Promises to Bring Pruitt to EPW in August
Jun 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) announced today that embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, currently facing more than a dozen federal investigations, will testify before his committee in August.
The committee did not specify the date Pruitt would appear, and promised further details later. In a statement, Barrasso said “the hearing will give senators the opportunity to ask important questions and hear about the work being done at the agency.”
Barrasso has for months resisted holding a hearing with Pruitt before EPW, the committee tasked with oversight of EPA. Democrats have pushed for him to bring the EPA chief before the committee as scandals around his ethical lapses and lavish spending pile up.
The announcement comes days after POLITICO reported that at least five Republicans on the panel, including Pruitt ally Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), said it was time for Pruitt to return for testimony.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Trump: Axing Obama Ocean Policy Will Boost Energy Security
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Citing the potential for increased energy development from U.S. waters, President Trump last night walked back an Obama-era ocean policy that aimed to improve coordination on coastal management.
Executive Order 13547, "Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes," comes as the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is proposing to open more than 90 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf to oil and gas leasing.
"Ocean industries employ millions of Americans and support a strong national economy," Trump wrote in the order. "Domestic energy production from Federal waters strengthens the Nation's security and reduces reliance on imported energy."
An industry group applauded the administration's directive and expressed confidence that BOEM's updated five-year offshore leasing program, expected to be finalized early next year, would provide all the necessary guidance.
"The offshore energy industry has successfully operated side by side with other ocean users, without major conflict, guided by the planning inherent in the five-year offshore national program and the leasing process mandated by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act," National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi said in a statement. "The Executive Order reverses the misguided course of the 2010 National Ocean Policy."
Offshore oil and gas producers are currently operating under a 2017-22 leasing program established under the Obama administration. The Trump White House has proposed an updated plan to cover 2019 to 2024 that would open up nearly all U.S. waters to energy developers.
The left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP) decried the loss of a policy that enabled states, tribes and coastal communities to establish regional ocean management priorities.
"This order is just the latest attack in what has become an all-out war on America's oceans. And it comes as the Trump administration is already trying to put drilling rigs off every coast from California to the Carolinas and make life easier for the biggest polluters," Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environmental policy at CAP, said in a statement.
Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee immediately asked Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) to call a hearing on the matter.
"This important topic deserves our attention and oversight," the lawmakers wrote in a letteryesterday. "This Committee demonstrated significant interest in the [National Ocean Policy], holding several hearings and advancing legislation on this topic in previous Congresses; the Committee should resume this work."
Bishop said in a statement that legislators' previous work on the policy — and others like it — revealed that the federal government was exerting too much control on coastal development.
"Today's announcement of President Trump repealing and replacing the bureaucratic, overreaching policy created under the previous administration puts our country's ocean policy back on the right track," Bishop said yesterday.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085161
-
Natural Gas Export Boom Brings Challenges for Top Energy Regulator
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The top U.S. energy regulator is hiring private contractors for the first time to help clear a growing backlog of LNG export applications.
Nine years ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had four LNG cases pending, Chairman Kevin McIntyre said. Today, it is grappling with 14, each of which generates a tremendous amount of work for the agency.
The surge is testament to the domestic shale gas revolution that spurred the first overseas shipments of liquefied natural gas from the lower 48 states two years ago and has put the U.S. on course to challenge Australia and Qatar for dominance in the global market in the next few years. But that success has created logistical challenges for the agency responsible for approving those projects.
“The workload is enormous,” McIntyre told the Natural Gas Roundtable in Washington June 19. “We have taken some unprecedented steps. For the first time in the commission’s history, to my knowledge, we’ve hired private contractors” to help with the reviews.
In the past month, the agency has taken on third-party contractors to handle non-proprietary work—such as carrying out inspections during the construction stage. It’s also looking to reallocate resources as well as hire more staff.
Expertise on what’s involved in a proper review of a complex pipeline or LNG application is not “as common a skillset as it used to be,” McIntyre said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/natural-gas-export-boom-brings-challenges-for-topenergyregulator
-
Refuge Drilling Opponents Submit Nearly 700k Comments to BLM
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Opponents of the Trump administration's plans to sell oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge submitted almost 700,000 comments yesterday demanding that federal regulators block drilling in the northeast corner of Alaska.
The comments were submitted at the end of the Bureau of Land Management's 60-day comment period on oil development in the 1.6-million-acre coastal plain.
The Interior Department doesn't plan to provide internet access to the public comments submitted during its scoping period on coastal plain leasing. Instead, regulators are expected to release a summary of those statements in mid-July, according to a BLM spokeswoman.
About 67,000 of the comments were gathered by the Sierra Club; the others came from a coalition of environmental groups including the Alaska Wilderness League, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Audubon Society.
In addition, hundreds of outdoor businesses, professional athletes, guides and other outdoor recreation professionals submitted letters opposing oil and gas leasing in the Arctic refuge. Opposition also came from 119 financial investor groups that represent $2.52 trillion in assets (E&E News PM, May 14).
The comments flowed in as environmentalists and Alaska and Canadian Native groups continued to protest the Interior Department's decision not to provide more time for the public to comment on BLM's leasing plan. Regulators also refused to hold additional public hearings on government plans to allow drilling on the coastal plain.
Over the last month, BLM held six public hearings in Alaska and one in Washington, D.C. But opponents argue that the Trump administration excluded many of the Native communities in Alaska and Canada that depend on the Porcupine caribou herd for subsistence. That herd migrates between northeastern Alaska and northwestern Canada.
"Despite Interior's efforts to shut the public out of this process, the people have sent a clear message to [Interior Secretary] Ryan Zinke that they will not stand for the destruction of the Arctic Refuge," Alli Harvey, Alaska representative for the Sierra Club's Our Wild America campaign, said in a statement.
"It's time to choose human rights and the preservation of wild places over greed and destruction," Harvey said. "We will continue to fight to protect the coastal plain."
BLM began the scoping period after Congress passed a tax bill that included a provision opening the coastal plain to oil and gas development, ending four decades of contentious national debate over management of the 19-million-acre Arctic refuge.
Under the tax bill language adopted in December, the Interior Department is required to hold at least two oil and gas lease sales within the next 10 years, with the first auction due within the next four years.
But the Trump administration is accelerating that timeline, vowing to complete work on a final environmental impact assessment in mid- to late 2019, with a lease sale expected shortly afterward.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085141
-
House GOP Budget Plan Calls for More Strategic Oil Reserve Sales
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Republicans are calling for an additional sale of 100 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
A June 19 budget proposal—which makes no changes in law and serves as a statement of House Republicans’ fiscal priorities—indicates future sales could be on the horizon.
“This budget assumes the sale of 100 million barrels of SPR, expecting that increased domestic energy production will allow the U.S. to maintain compliance with international agreements,” according to a summary of the plan.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/housegop-budgetplan-calls-for-more-strategic-oil-reserve-sales
-
Fragile Deal Still Intact for Energy, Water Bill in Senate
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Dean Scott
A fragile deal between Republicans and Democrats is intact—for now—as the Senate moves forward on a bill that would provide more than $43 billion in funding to the Energy Department and the Army Corps of Engineers for the coming fiscal year.
Leaders from the two parties are urging their colleagues not to add amendments to the bill that would mire it in partisan debate.
The bill provides funding to federal agencies that handle energy and water issues for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
“We want members to come to the floor, offer amendments, and debate them,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said. “But if we are going to succeed in moving this bill through the Senate, members on both sides of the aisle need to show restraint.”
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is waiting to see what Republicans will do and won’t offer any amendments “unless it really gets into amendment warfare here.”
The bill debate is scheduled to last through this week. So far, members have offered several dozen amendments but none that touch on hot-button issues.
Migrant CrisisThat could change, however, if the Senate decides to use this bill as a vehicle to address the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their families at detention centers on the southern border.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told reporters that he may offer an amendment that would change U.S. policy around the length of time children can be detained. He said this amendment would be germane to the bill because, in addition to funding the Corps and Energy Department, it also provides funding for military construction programs.
The bill (H.R. 5895) already passed the House earlier this month on a largely party-line vote.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/fragile-deal-still-intact-for-energy-water-bill-in-senate
-
EPA Stands Pat on Chemical Spill Regulations, Despite Suit
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The status quo will likely remain for companies that store chemicals in above-ground tanks.
Despite litigation, the EPA doesn’t plan to change its safety regulations around chemical storage near major bodies of water, according to a proposal unveiled June 19.
Prior to the Trump administration taking office, the EPA reached a legal agreementwith several environmental groups that required it to consider new regulations for chemical storage near major bodies of water. The agreement set a deadline of this month to issue a proposal and also requires the EPA to issue a final decision by Aug. 29, 2019.
The EPA says it considered the current chemical safety regulations and determined that no new regulations were necessary.
Erik Olson, health program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the plaintiffs, said the EPA’s decision not to act will “seriously endanger” people who “live near industrial sites that pollute streams, lakes and drinking water sources.”
Olson also told Bloomberg Environment in an email that the agency is “brazenly refusing” to comply with the legal agreement.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit—filed in a federal court in Manhattan—argued that new regulations are needed to prevent another incident such as the catastrophic 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia’s Elk River.
The spill resulted from the rupture of an above-ground storage tank belonging to Freedom Industries, a chemical manufacturing company. It left hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby city of Charleston without access to potable water for days afterward.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-stands-pat-on-chemical-spill-regulations-despite-suit
-
Perry's 'National Security' Push for Grid Draws Skepticism on the Hill
Jun 19, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Darius Nixon
The Trump administration is having a hard time winning over skeptics to its claim that the retirement of coal-fired and nuclear power plants poses a national security threat.
For more than a year, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has argued that letting those struggling generators shut down would threaten the power grid's ability to bounce back from an attack or severe storm. Although he's failed to persuade federal power regulators to prop up the plants, Perry is pushing that argument with the National Security Council in an effort to head off new closures.
Some congressional Republicans said though they are sensitive to the national security concerns and woes of the coal industry, they doubted the grid faces the dire situation that Perry has predicted, and they are wary of intervening in the energy markets.
"I’m a Navy guy. I want our country secure,” said Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas). “But their arguments haven’t been about security. It’s been about propping up coal and nuclear power.”
Olson authored the legislative language that was added to the 2015 FAST Act and expanded Perry's ability to intervene in grid operations during an emergency. But he said the Energy Department's arguments, contained in paper that leaked earlier this month, failed to convince him that shutting down money-losing plants presented a threat to national security.
“A crisis to me means the power is going out. But to support some jobs in some parts of the country, eh, that’s not what the bill is designed to do,” he said. “Our bill was just to deal with crisis, not to deal with this."
His comments echoed the sentiments of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who told the committee last week she had "concerns" about DOE interfering in the power markets.
Coal-fired power plant closures slowed in 2017, but they are expected to accelerate next year with 12.5 gigawatts of capacity expected to shut down, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That figure is near the record retirements of 15 GW set in 2015. Energy experts and even a Perry-directed DOE analysis last year put blame for the plants' demise on stagnant power demand and the rise of natural gas and renewables.
But the draft DOE paper that recently leaked showed that the agency has considered using its authority under the Federal Power Act's 202(c) provision to "temporarily delay retirement of fuel-secure electric generation resources" while threats to natural gas and electric infrastructure are assessed. And it also considered using the Defense Production Act to require power purchases from endangered plants in an effort to put off shutdowns for two years.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly told Perry to step in to help the plants, including earlier this month when he directed Perry to take “immediate steps” to staunch coal and nuclear plant retirements. He called on the former Texas governor to hold a news conference to announce a plan.
It's not the only issue where the Trump administration has invoked "national security" to defend a controversial action. Trump has threatened to use a trade law that leverages national security to impose tariffs on imported vehicles, the same law the administration used to to put tariffs on steel and aluminum.
“Let’s face it, there’s an awful lot of stuff being lumped into national security,” former Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told POLITICO. “How this works out, I don’t know. But I do know we need to … do appropriate analyses when called for that do not have national security being used willy-nilly to accomplish all kinds of goals that are not necessarily the right ones.”
Moniz acknowledged Perry had wide latitude under the law to declare a grid emergency, but he said that didn't absolve the administration from needing to prove there’s a real crisis on the power grid.
“Reliability and resilience are public goods. We just haven’t seen any analysis that suggests that this is a pathway that’s needed to address that,” he said.
Jason Bordoff, who served as Obama's senior National Security Council aide for energy and climate, said he fears the current fight could drag the real threat of cybersecurity into the political fray.
“The bigger risk would be a very legitimate issue of the cyber vulnerability of the grid becomes politicized because it gets wrapped up in this policy objective to save the coal industry as well as nuclear,” said Bordoff, who is now director for the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.
Even Rep. Joe Barton, a longtime stalwart Perry ally, said he was skeptical of DOE’s insistence that the grid was facing a national security threat from the plant closures.
“They’re scrounging around for a way to keep some of these nuclear plants and coal plants viable and they’re using that particular argument,” the Texas Republican said. “To me, it’s not persuasive, but I understand what they’re trying to do.”
There are real national security threats against the electric grid from electromagnetic pulses, physical attacks and cyber intrusions, Barton said, adding that “in most cases, it’s a mistake to use a national security argument to keep a plant in operation that normal market forces would probably close.”
Other Perry allies weren't sure how effective the Trump administration's strategy would be. GOP lobbyist Mike McKenna, who helped run Trump's DOE transition team, said the agency laid out the "single best set of arguments for preserving coal and nuclear generation." Still, he said, the options laid out in the DOE document probably would not achieve the protection that coal and nuclear advocates are seeking. And the national security arguments didn't seem to be gaining much traction.
"The national security angle has its advantages and its limits — not the least of those is that not too many people can and do make the argument that national security is really impaired by the closure of coal power plants," he said in an email. "It would probably be better if advocates focused on the potential over-reliance on one source (natural gas) in both electricity generation, and, if utilities get their way, in transportation fuels."
FERC shot down a regulation from Perry aimed at protecting the coal and nuclear generators earlier this year, and FERC commissioners told a Senate hearing last week that the grid faced no imminent threat, drawing praise from industry groups.
Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette argued that national security has always been DOE's focus, and he said that the agency's critics aren't seeing the whole picture from their industry's silos. "That’s what they get paid to do. But that’s not what the secretary gets paid to do and we’re going to approach this with a broader view," he told POLITICO.
And he shrugged off comments from FERC commissioners that the electricity markets they oversee were operating efficiently and offered the best way to address security concerns.
“Is the market a factor here at the end of the day? Yes, it is. But we’re not in this to have an economics classroom debate about theories of markets," he said. “The markets, in some respects, are not designed to produce a national security outcome."
Brouillette also said the White House had not given it a deadline, and there was no decision yet on whether to invoke any authorities.
"There has been no decision and we’re [not] just working backwards," he said. "If we get to the point where there’s a proposal or a proposed solution to a problem that we find, then perhaps Congress has a role. But at this point, we’re nowhere near that stage."
For FERC and its supporters, countering the DOE claim that national security is at stake may take more than technical arguments. Sarah Ladislaw, who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ energy and national security program, said many of the rebuttals from FERC commissioners so far were akin to “bringing a spoon to a knife fight.”
“The idea that market efficiency is supposed to trump national security is exactly the reason why national security provisions exist. They’re there to protect things that may not make economic sense. … I think it’s an entirely different game from a legal perspective,” Ladislaw said. “It’s really hard to prove that a national security measure is bogus.”
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said he would stick to the economic arguments and pointed out the high potential cost of DOE's proposal, even as the administration sought to change the conversation.
“Around here, if you can trod out national security for just about anything ... the leverage goes to you,” he said. But, he added, “I’m pounding the ratepayer issue [because] that’s the one issue that I think puts a stake right in the guts of their argument.”
And other Democrats are fuming that the agency is even considering the use of its rarely tapped emergency authorities.
“It’s about abuse of power. You can’t just start claiming a national security justification that clearly has nothing to do with national security, and that’s a very dangerous road to go down,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/06/perrys-national-security-push-for-grid-draws-skepticism-on-the-hill-629634#
-
Houston Produces a Lot of Chlorine so Responders Need to Be Prepared
Jun 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Andrea Leinfelder
Emergency responders examined the valves as a trainer pointed to cracks where chlorine could leak from the railcar. Their first task, should they be called to a leak, would be tightening these valves.
That can often fix the problem. But if it doesn’t work, emergency responders must use a kit specifically designed to cover the valves and seal the leak. They practiced applying this “C-Kit” to a prop railcar housing, despite sideways rain making it beneath the tent’s protection.
“You’re going to be on top of a car,” said Danny Wood, a supervisor for Westlake Chemical. “It’s always going to be raining and it’s always going to be at night. That’s just how chlorine leaks, I guess.”
More than 3.5 million metric tons of chlorine are produced in the Houston area each year, according to IHS Markit data provided by the Greater Houston Partnership. And roughly 100 first responders are attending training sessions this week in Houston hosted by the Chlorine Institute, BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad.
Most emergency responders will never use a C-Kit during their career, as leaks are rare, but it’s important to be prepared.
“We want those people to be educated,” said Clay Reid, director of hazardous materials for BNSF Railway, “and to understand all the resources the railroad brings.”
Since 1965, there have been 11 major tank car breaches among the more than 2 million rail shipments of chlorine. The majority of those breaches were in the distant past. Chlorine producers and shippers began working with railroad companies more than 10 years ago to enhance the safety features of railcars and valve assemblies.
That has worked to “take a rare occurrence and make it even more rare,” Reid said.
On Tuesday, first responders began their day in the classroom learning about the chemical and physical properties of chlorine. They discussed protective gear and learned about various components of a railcar.
The event wasn’t limited to trains. The Chlorine Institute, a technical trade association, has created the specifications for kits used to patch leaks in 150-pound cylinders and 1-ton containers, both of which could be found in a water treatment plant, for instance. So first responders learned how to use those kits, too.
The training was supposed to be held last year but was postponed due to Hurricane Harvey. It has been a few years since the Chlorine Institute hosted training in Houston, but some of its member companies, including Dow Chemical, have been in the area recently to do similar trainings.
BNSF, Union Pacific and the Chlorine Institute are sponsors for the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response, TRANSCAER. They were among TRANSCAER affiliates that trained some 44,700 people last year on the movement of hazardous materials.
Erica Bernstein, director of outreach for the Chlorine Institute, said these trainings are a good opportunity for first responders to meet railroad representatives and team members who execute the Chlorine Emergency Plan.
“It’s always good to meet them ahead of time,” she said, “because when they’re working on an incident it could be a fast-paced environment.”
https://www.chron.com/business/article/Houston-produces-a-lot-of-chlorine-so-responders-13008558.php
-
'Secret Science' Policy's Impact on Pending NAAQS Review May Be Muted
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposed rule barring the agency from using confidential data in rulemakings might not have as dramatic an impact on pending national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) as many fear because some of the most influential air pollution studies relevant to those reviews rely on publicly available data, sources say.
Pruitt's April 24 proposal says EPA may not base its regulations on data that are not available to the public, and science that is not “reproducible.” Cast by Pruitt as an effort to boost transparency, the rule echoes House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith's (R-TX) stalled “secret science” bill.
But Democrats, environmentalists and some scientists view the proposal as an attack on legitimate science. Several of the most important studies that have provided the basis for major air rules, including NAAQS for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), have relied on confidential medical data, including studies by Harvard University, such as the well-known “Six Cities” study, and also key research by the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Observers have suggested that Pruitt's rule, if finalized, could make it harder to consider new studies on ozone and PM that might help justify stricter standards or to fend off calls to weaken either NAAQS. If the studies rely on confidential data then under EPA's rule they could not be considered in the standard reviews.
Ozone and PM2.5 have so far proven to be “no threshold” pollutants, meaning that no safe threshold for human exposure has been identified. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set NAAQS at a level requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and courts often defer to the agency on how to set that standard.
Pruitt has set a goal of the end of Oct. 1, 2020, for completing review of the 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb), which the Obama administration tightened from the 2008 limit of 75 ppb.
Separately, the administrator has set a goal of December 2020 for completing review of the 2012 PM NAAQS of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), which is stricter than the prior 1997 PM limit of 15 ug/m3.
Since those reviews, some new scientific studies have been published, again pointing toward the need for tougher standards. Among the most influential are studies reliant on data from the Medicare program, or published Canadian government healthcare statistics, which are available to the public, sources say.
Such studies might therefore escape a filter imposed by EPA's new science policy, if it is finalized, sources say. One example is work by Harvard University researcher Francesca Dominici and her collaborators on PM2.5 and ozone, for which preliminary results are available, pointing toward the need for a stricter NAAQS to protect public health. The work has been in the New England Journal of Medicine and in the Journal of American Medical Association, showing links between PM2.5 exposure, mortality and other adverse health outcomes even at very low levels of exposure.
In a paper by Qian Di, Dominici and colleagues, “Air Pollution and Mortality in the Medicare Population,” published in the New England Journal of Medicine June 29, 2017, Dominici and colleagues conclude, “In the entire Medicare population, there was significant evidence of adverse effects related to exposure to PM2.5 and ozone at concentrations below current national standards. This effect was most pronounced among self-identified racial minorities and people with low income.”
'Anyone Can Obtain These Data'
One air quality science expert notes that Medicare data have also been used recently by Tufts University researcher Helen Suh, sponsored by the California-based Electric Power Research Institute, a utility industry-funded research body. “This goes to show that anyone can obtain these data and analyze them,” the source says.
“A second consortium, organized by the oil industry, has also obtained the Medicare data and is analyzing them, with special focus on causality analyses,” the source says. Causality analysis is the attempt to draw causal inferences between air pollution exposures and health outcomes. Dominici is also expected to examine causality in greater depth, and results will likely be available this fall, the source says.
One former chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) says, “Clearly, one consequence of the [science] rule, if implemented, would be potential exclusion of some epidemiological studies. The recent studies from Harvard (and earlier studies) have used the Medicare data base and hence the data could be reconstructed by anyone able to do so."
But the former CASAC chair cautions that the new data should not be used in isolation from older, high-quality studies. It “is preferable to have the full body of evidence in hand so that variation across studies can be examined and the consistency of findings assessed. Around PM and mortality, the Six Cities and ACS studies were critical, as the only two major studies of air pollution and long-term mortality. Now, there are many more studies and the overall body of evidence is generally consistent.”
Meanwhile, another former member of the chartered seven-member CASAC says, “it is very possible that recent studies that are based on publicly available data could provide strong enough evidence of adverse effects of PM2.5 levels below the current standard to support a finding that the standard should be revised downward."
But “in general, it is preferable to base the scientific findings on more than one study, regardless of how excellent a single study may be,” the source says.
Further, “There is certainly more awareness of and interest in trying to use publicly available data on the part of the air pollution epidemiologic community, or in finding ways to make data available,” the second former CASAC member says, citing efforts by the Health Effects Institute (HEI) to make “data and specimens” available from its recent Multicenter Ozone Study in Older Subjects study available. HEI is a research organization jointly funded by EPA and the auto industry.
But the source says, “This does not mean that legal, ethical, and valid studies based on human subject data that cannot be disclosed publicly should be ignored. I do not see any language in the Clean Air Act that states that EPA may use only the science that its politically appointed administrator arbitrarily allows it to use. Nor would I expect that a regulation to this effect promulgated by an EPA administrator would take precedence over laws passed by Congress.”
Also, the air law requires that NAAQS protect public health with an “adequate margin of safety,” and this means looking at scientific evidence of air pollution's effects on the health of vulnerable groups such as asthmatic children -- which some of the newer studies do not address.
New Studies
One industry source says that while some of the newer air pollution studies do not use confidential data, there are other new studies that do not necessarily point toward tougher standards.
Of the two forthcoming NAAQS reviews, the source predicts that EPA will meet its deadline for ozone -- but not PM2.5. There is a larger body of new research available on PM2.5, the source says.
A source with the public health group the American Lung Association (ALA), which has pushed for tougher ozone and PM2.5 standards, says that although “we are very pleased there are more studies out there,” the new data “doesn't substitute for the older studies.” While the new data will reinforce earlier findings about the need for tougher standards, it is “not an either/or situation."
The source also calls the schedule for EPA's review of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS “completely unrealistic,” possibly necessitating shortcuts in scientific review.
While ALA pushes for EPA to stick to five-year review cycles, the source notes that the agency is now years behind schedule and should not truncate review at the expense of scientific rigor.
Pruitt has already outlined a plan to shorten the review process, collapsing several distinct steps into fewer. Since the George W. Bush administration, EPA has in NAAQS reviews produced an integrated science assessment (ISA) collating relevant new research, a risk and exposure assessment (REA) to estimate health risks, and a policy assessment (PA) giving EPA staff's view of the options the administrator has in setting the NAAQS. CASAC has been involved in reviewing each step.
Pruitt's plan is outlined in his May 9 memo, which also makes other changes to the NAAQS review process, including consideration of non-health issues such as feasibility and implementation costs.
CASAC has a statutory duty to consider such issues, but EPA has previously held that the obligation must be separate from the NAAQS review itself, under Supreme Court precedent.
In a June 14 letter, 71 House Democrats wrote to Pruitt to express their “deep concern” over the memo. “Your memo’s stratagem -- formally directing CASAC to consider non-health factors during the standard-setting process, before final standards are adopted -- is highly objectionable,” the lawmakers write.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/secret-science-policys-impact-pending-naaqs-review-may-be-muted
-
States in the Dark About EPA Effort to Tackle Upwind Air Pollution (1)
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is keeping mum about its plans to address emissions of smog-forming pollutants that prevent downwind states from meeting federal ozone pollution requirements.
The proposal was submitted June 18 to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review before being publicly released.
The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged in a brief summary of the proposal that it partially addressed what is known as the Clean Air Act’s good neighbor provision as part of its 2016 update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, an interstate emissions trading program.
The agency stopped short of saying what it plans to do in the upcoming rulemaking.
The good neighbor provision requires states to address problems with downwind pollution. EPA air officials recently told the 12 states and the District of Columbia that make up the Ozone Transport Commission that they prefer states draft their own plans to keep their pollution from affecting their neighbors, rather than grant state petitions seeking federal limits on emissions from specific power plants and other facilities.
Power plants are the largest sources of nitrogen oxides, a precursor to ozone, which causes a variety of health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with asthma.
The EPA didn’t respond to a request for more details on the proposal, and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies also declined to comment.
Back in 2016, the EPA described its rule addressing interstate transport of power plant pollution as a cost-effective yet “partial remedy” to help downwind states meet the national ozone standard of 75 parts per billion that were set in 2008. However, the agency added, “The EPA will continue to look at the availability, cost-effectiveness, and timing of emissions reductions from other sectors for potential inclusion in a future interstate transport rule.”
The cross state air pollution rule identified the states contributing one percent of pollution, and then assigned them reduction obligations based on reductions that could be made within a certain cost threshold, Janet McCabe, who served as EPA’s acting assistant administrator for air and radiation during the Obama administration, told Bloomberg Environment.
“That amount of reductions was not enough to fully address the upwind obligation to certain downwind states, so we referred to it as a ‘partial’ solution,” McCabe said. “I don’t know what this rule will say, of course. It may require additional reductions from those one percent upwind states, or it may propose that further reductions aren’t needed.”
It is unclear whether the EPA is crafting another interstate rule to address emissions from other sources, such as automobiles and personal care products, such as aerosols, state and former EPA officials told Bloomberg Environment.
All Eyes on Proposal“The way EPA has handled cross state air pollution in the past has been very controversial, and it may be that they are planning to change that, but we won’t know until we actually see the proposal,” Jeff Holmstead, former EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation under President George W. Bush who now is a partner in Bracewell LLP’s Washington office.
The EPA’s policy required upwind states to control power plant emissions if downwind states found themselves out of compliance by even a single percent of the national ozone standard, Holmstead said.
Alternatively, the EPA may decide that it already has addressed the good neighbor provision in 2016, and will do no more using the cost criteria it set up in the 2016 rule, Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), told Bloomberg Environment. The group is an association of eight Northeast states.
Northeastern states are concerned about ozone-forming pollution blowing in from upwind states because monitoring shows that the greater New York City area and parts of Connecticut will be out of compliance with the 2008 as well as the 2015 ozone standards of 70 ppb.
“I am going to be interested if this is EPA’s attempt to address lingering significant contributions beyond the update to the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution rule, and particularly how they address costs to determine whether there are any highly effective controls available in those 22 states. If not, they are imposing huge costs on downwind states,” Miller said.
As part of the 2016 updates, the EPA said it would work with Western states to meet the ozone standard on a case-by-case basis. Western states said the EPA needs to assist with studies to understand the influential role played by natural sources, such as wildfires, as well as long-range transport of pollutants that account for ozone exceedances.
(Updates with comments from McCabe starting in ninth paragraph)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/states-in-the-dark-about-epa-effort-to-tackle-upwind-air-pollution-1
-
CEQ Issues Advance Notice for Sweeping Update of NEPA Regulations
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on a long-anticipated and potentially sweeping update of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing rules, opening the door to just the second amendment to the rules in 40 years.
The ANPR is scheduled to be published in the June 20 Federal Register, kicking off a 30-day public comment period.
The notice says CEQ is “considering” updating its implementing regulations for NEPA, noting that it has issued numerous guidance documents over the last 40 years but has substantively amended the implementing rules only once.
Release of the plan comes one day after President Donald Trump formally nominated Mary Neumayr to be CEQ chairwoman. She has been acting chair and chief of staff since March 2017.
Trump has complained that NEPA makes reviews of infrastructure projects take too long, and he has undertaken other efforts to shorten the reviews. However, CEQ's requests for comment appear to be limited -- precluding, for example, seeking comments on some steps the administration has already taken to streamline the reviews -- and uses relatively neutral language as it seeks comments on a range of items.
Nevertheless, the regulatory update could allow the Trump administration to formally implement a series of NEPA changes that Trump outlined in an executive order signed last summer, especially given the unlikelihood that Congress will adopt legislative updates that the administration and many Republicans favor. The White House's infrastructure plan, released in February, would require several amendments to bedrock environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, making their likelihood of succeeding slim.
One environmentalist says despite the neutral language, the ANPR is “worrisome” because it is “obviously . . . in line with this administration's efforts to roll back environmental safeguards and oversight, but the perceived 'problems' with the current CEQ regulations could easily be addressed within the current framework. This is another example of the administration feigning inefficiency and red tape in an effort to demolish fundamental environmental protections.”
However, Timothy Male, a former CEQ official who now runs the Environmental Policy Information Center (EPIC), says the ANPR asks “a set of commonsense NEPA-related questions that are an appropriate beginning to the process of revising its regulations that date from the 1980s.”
The council seeks comment on whether it should revise its rules to ensure that NEPA reviews involving multiple agencies should be coordinated, and if so, how.
It stops short of calling for one agency to be the lead in multi-agency NEPA reviews, and does not mention a memorandum of understanding released in April and signed by EPA and 11 other agencies that seeks to limit NEPA reviews to two years and assigns a “lead agency” to each review, giving it greater authority to direct the analysis.
Scope Of Reviews
CEQ also asks whether the new rules should promote efficiency by “better facilitating agency use of environmental studies, analysis, and decision conducted in earlier” reviews.
It also asks for input on the scope of reviews, including whether rules for format and page-length of NEPA documents should be revised and whether it should include time limits for completion of reviews. Additionally, it asks whether the rules for public involvement should be revised to be both more inclusive and more efficient.
Further, it asks whether definitions of key terms -- such as “major federal actions,” “effects,” “cumulative impacts,” “significantly,” “scope” and others -- should be revised.
It also seeks comment on whether to add new definitions, such as for “alternatives,” “purpose and need” and “reasonably foreseeable.”
And it asks if provisions relating to specific types of NEPA documents -- such as categorical exclusions documentation, environmental assessments (EA), environmental impact statements (EIS) and records of decision -- should be revised.
NEPA requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of major federal actions and to consider mitigating them or using less harmful alternatives. Agencies conduct either an EA or a rigorous EIS, and Trump has complained that both are too detailed and take too long, delaying projects.
CEQ's notice contemplates broader revisions, seeking comment on regulations relating to agency responsibility and the preparation of NEPA documents, including by contractors and applicants; on regulations regarding programmatic NEPA documents and tiering; and on provisions for appropriate ranges of alternatives.
The document also seeks general input on whether the rules' current provisions are obsolete; where updates are needed to incorporate new technologies; whether and how CEQ can promote coordination to boost efficiency; whether CEQ can update rules to reduce unnecessary burdens and delays; and whether mitigation requirements should be revised.
The forthcoming rewrite of CEQ's implementing rules has been widely expected after the council has a permanent chair in place. Neumayr is expected to win easy Senate confirmation, though she has not yet had a hearing.
“It is pretty clear to me the objective of this administration is to open up for discussion and revision of the existing CEQ [NEPA] regulations. It's going to happen,” Fred Wagner, a former Federal Highway Administration official who is now in private practice, told InsideEPA/climate in April.
CEQ in September published an initial list of actions in response to the Trump order, including creation of a working group of federal agencies to review the NEPA implementing rules and “identify impediments to the efficient and effective processing of environmental reviews and authorizations for infrastructure projects.”
The council's new notice does not address climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, after the Trump administration last spring revoked an Obama-era CEQ guidance on how to address climate in NEPA reviews, though CEQ has said agencies can still use the withdrawn document.
However, EPIC's Male says that while the ANPR marks a good starting point, he says it could also have sought more direct substantive information. For example, rather than asking how technology can make the process more efficient, it could have asked how regulations can encourage the use of technology to better compare alternatives.
“Page limits are fine, but we should also be talking about gigabyte limits and download speeds,” he says, adding he is glad that CEQ seeks input on mitigation and cites an under-used 2014 policy on the topic.
“There are clear win-wins possible in speeding up and simplifying the NEPA process where the agency action can largely avoid or offset its impacts on important resources affected by a proposed project.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ceq-issues-advance-notice-sweeping-update-nepa-regulations
-
Bipartisan State Leaders Seek Long-Term Carbon Capture Certainty
Jun 19, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A bipartisan group of states, led by Govs. Matt Mead (R-Wyo.) and Steve Bullock (D-Mont.), is teaming up to get more carbon capture projects off the ground.
The governors—which co-convene a group of 15 states working on carbon capture issues—launched two initiatives June 19 aimed to encourage policy at the state and federal levels, providing incentives for the technology, and to move projects to the deployment stage.
The initiatives are the latest engagement from states in carbon capture, which separates carbon dioxide from the emissions of industrial facilities or power plants so it can be stored or used. To date, the technology has struggled to achieve large-scale commercial deployment, particularly in the power sector, due to the large capital cost needed for projects.
“We have to change the conversation. It really is doable,” Mead said during June 19 remarks at a carbon capture conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo. “The only way we get there long term for our states is innovation, technology, and a recognition that it’s not legitimate to just stop the use of coal.”
Certainty for ProjectsMead is aiming to recruit 17 governors to participate in the Regional Carbon Capture Deployment Initiative, which will map potential carbon capture projects, evaluate their feasibility, and support the development of those projects.
The second initiative, a policy-focused governors’ partnership, will urge federal and state policies to expand carbon capture deployment, as well as development of carbon dioxide pipelines to transport captured greenhouse gas to facilities for storage. Bullock and Mead will co-chair the partnership, which initially also will include the governors of Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Utah.
The initiatives, and state action on carbon capture more broadly, could help offer certainty to industries seeking to make investments in projects, particularly as federal climate policy remains uncertain, the governors said.
“I’m not going to pin my hopes on Congress taking the actions we need,” Bullock told the conference. “Governors don’t have the luxury of waiting on things like that.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bipartisan-state-leaders-seek-long-term-carbon-capture-certainty
-
New Group, With Conservative Credentials, Plans Push for a Carbon Tax
Jun 20, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
Proponents of a market-oriented plan to fight climate change by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and giving the revenue to American taxpayers are starting a campaign to run advertisements as early as this fall and introduce legislation in Congress as early as next year.
The plan’s supporters have formed a group called Americans for Carbon Dividends that will lobby for the proposal. The group plans its first event on Wednesday and includes a number of well-known members, including Trent Lott, the former Senate Republican leader from Mississippi, and Janet L. Yellen, who led the Federal Reserve under President Barack Obama.
The initiative has already won endorsements from some environmental groups, like the Nature Conservancy and Conservation International; fossil fuel giants like Exxon Mobil, Shell and BP; and major companies in renewable and nuclear energy and consumer goods.
“It’s something that may command bipartisan consensus,” Ms. Yellen said in an interview, calling the proposal “a very exciting prospect.” Taxing carbon dioxide emissions to reduce energy use, she added, is “absolutely standard textbook economics.”
The proposal would set an initial tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced and would increase the price over time. That would raise the cost of a gallon of gas by approximately 38 cents, the group says, with similar effects on household heating and other energy use. That could, in turn, encourage people and businesses to become more energy efficient and curb their use of fossil fuels.
To offset the higher prices, the tax revenue would be returned to consumers as a “carbon dividend.” The group estimates that the dividend would give a family of four about $2,000 in the first year.
The group says the plan could reduce United States emissions even further than the Obama administration pledged under the Paris climate accord.Image
But the leaders of the group are not holding their breath. The notion that the current fractious Congress could pass a bill based on the proposal is not within their fondest expectations. Instead, their strategy is to build public support for the plan while working toward a legislative proposal that could be introduced after the midterm elections, when a new Congress might be more friendly to environmental legislation.
“It’s not going to happen overnight — we’ve been debating this for 30 years,” said Mr. Lott, mentioning past efforts like the failure to pass complicated cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 and the lack of support for the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement. But now, he said, “I really do think the tide is turning.”
Mr. Lott pointed to bipartisan support in the current Congress for renewing a tax break for technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide, and cited results of a poll commissioned by the group that showed wide support for the principles of taxing carbon and returning the money to taxpayers. A 2016 study by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication also found that most Americans would back such a program.
Giving the money back to consumers could sweeten the deal for taxpayers, but other parts of the plan are intended to foster support from other quarters. Climate change regulations on businesses would be rolled back — although the Trump administration has already moved to rescind a number of existing rules. Fossil fuel companies, meanwhile, would be protected from lawsuits intended to hold them accountable for the damage caused by climate change.
This element of the deal has angered some climate change activists. “We categorically oppose any deal that shoves trillions in costs down the throats of innocent taxpayers and lets the companies skip away to profit and deceive another day,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has encouraged investigations and lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry.
Still, the group has drawn bipartisan support. Mr. Lott is a co-chairman, with John B. Breaux, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana. Senior advisers to the group include Mark McKinnon, who was an aide to President George W. Bush, and Joe Lockhart, who worked with President Bill Clinton. Ben S. Bernanke, Ms. Yellen’s predecessor, is another founding member.
The plan was first put forth in February 2017 by a related group called the Climate Leadership Council, with the backing of a team of Republican lions like the former secretaries of state James A. Baker III and George P. Shultz.
Despite the group’s Republican backing, other powerful conservatives like the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch continue to support politicians who deny the science of climate change. Republican candidates who talk about fighting climate change risk being overwhelmed by heavily funded opponents in primaries.
If the new group’s fund-raising is successful, it could counter the forces that have turned primaries into climate abattoirs, a prospect that could lead to a rift in the Republican Party. One of the political advisers, Mr. McKinnon, said, “I sure hope so.”
“I think a lot of Republicans are looking for a rift on this issue,” said Mr. McKinnon, who is a Republican. “You don’t want to give money back to consumers and make the environment cleaner? I’ll have that debate.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/carbon-tax-climate-change.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
-
EPA Sued For Permitting More Air Pollution Near National Parks
Jun 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is facing a lawsuit for allowing factories and power plants that are expanding or constructing new facilities near national parks and wilderness areas to emit more pollution.
The advocacy organization asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 18 to review the memo that the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality planning office issued April 17 to ease the permitting process for manufacturing and power plants.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
Revised MetricsAt issue in the memo are revisions that the EPA made to certain metrics. The revisions will make it easier for companies to obtain air pollution permits in areas that already meet national standards for ozone and fine particulates, or microscopic specks of pollution from industrial and natural sources, environmental groups said.
The EPA, however, stopped short of mandating the use of these thresholds by giving state agencies the option to use these levels when deciding whether to issue permits under its New Source Review program, which is part of the Clean Air Act.
Specifically, the memo revises significant impact levels that set thresholds for how much air pollution facilities can emit owing to an expansion or upgrade of their plants. It increases, by nearly fourfold, the threshold for emissions of fine particulate matter that affect national parks and wilderness areas.
The fine particle pollution thresholds for the remainder of the country either remain unchanged or decrease slightly from the impact levels set in 2010.
The EPA did not respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment on the lawsuit.
The case is Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1167, 6/18/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-sued-for-permitting-more-air-pollution-near-national-parks
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested