Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 16, 2018
-
Markup of Veteran's Health and Chemical Assessment Legislation
Jul 18, 2018 | The House Science, Space and Technology Committee
Location: 2318 Rayburn / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing on Interior-EPA Funding Legislation
Jul 16, 2018 | The House Rules Committee
Location: H-313 Capitol / 5:00 PM. -
Hearing on Government Overhaul
Jul 19, 2018 | The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
Markup of New Source Review legislation
Jul 17, 2018 | The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
Location: 2322 Rayburn / 1:00 PM. -
Hearing on Carbon Tax Resolution
Jul 17, 2018 | The House Rules Committee
Location: H-313 Capitol / 3:00 PM. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dispute Between Us and China Could Escalate / Petrochemicals Severely Impacted / ACC Calls for Common Sense
Jul 16, 2018 | Plasteurope
The trade war between the US and China (see Plasteurope.com of 06.04.2018), which has escalated to the point where punitive tariffs are being levied on goods valued at USD 50 bn, could heat up further. -
Transcript of E&E News' Interview with Andrew Wheeler
Jul 13, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sat down with E&E News for an interview at the end of his first week on the job. -
New EPA Head Andrew Wheeler Vows to Be ‘Stabilizing Force’ After Pruitt Turmoil
Jul 15, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
Energy companies and trade groups harbor one big hope for the new leader of the Environmental Protection Agency: a steady hand. -
New EPA Chief Draws Sharp Contrast to Pruitt
Jul 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Andrew Wheeler quickly made waves in his first week as the interim head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), drawing a sharp contrast with his predecessor. -
Subpoena Sought Over Allegations EPA Mishandled Records Requests
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Environmental Protection Agency manipulated its handling of open records requests so that documents from the Obama years got priority over those involving the agency’s embattled former chief, Scott Pruitt, and other Trump administration officials, according to congressional interviews with EPA staffers. -
Interior, EPA Fights Take Center Stage
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss, Kellie Lunney and George Cahlink
Long-simmering battles over energy and environmental policy will play out on the House floor this week as the chamber takes up fiscal 2019 spending for the Interior Department and EPA. -
Software-Based Chemical Screen Could Minimize Animal Testing
Jul 13, 2018 | The Scientist
By Anna Azvolinsky
Worldwide, millions of animals are used for toxicity testing of compounds intended for human and environmental use. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Europe’s Chemical Industry Learned to Love REACH
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Europe’s leading chemical industry association, has made a U-turn in its view of REACH, Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals legislation. -
Markup Set on Bill to Revamp Assessment Process
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Colleen Luccioli
Key Republican lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will have their chance to push reforms to EPA's controversial chemical assessment process. -
In N.Y., Farmers Think About What Might Have Been
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
When Kevin "Cub" Frisbie wants to see what shale can do for a place, all he has to do is get in his pickup and drive 15 miles south to Bradford County, Pa. -
Trump Said to Mull Tapping U.S. Oil Reserve as Pump Prices Rise
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration is actively considering tapping into the nation’s emergency supply of crude oil as political pressure grows to rein in rising gasoline prices before congressional elections in November, two people familiar with the situation said. -
Higher Oil, Natural Gas Prices Needed for Stronger Drilling Response, U.S. Operators Tell Kansas City Fed
Jul 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
Oil and natural gas activity expanded “solidly” during the second quarter in much of the Rockies and the northern half of New Mexico, and exploration and production (E&P) companies in the region continue to have strong expectations for future development, albeit at a higher price, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) of Kansas City said Friday. -
New York Fears FERC Bid To Bypass Court Scrutiny Of Pipeline GHG Reviews
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
New York Attorney General (AG) Barbara Underwood (D) is raising concerns that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may be seeking to bypass judicial scrutiny of its decisions not to analyze upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts for most natural gas infrastructure approvals, despite a court ruling requiring such reviews. -
EPA, FERC Need Bigger Roles in NatGas Pipeline Permitting, Senate Panel Told
Jul 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Executives from the oil and gas industry told a Senate panel on Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency and FERC needed to play bigger roles to ensure a fair regulatory climate to permit natural gas pipelines, adding that Congress may need to change some laws to help make that possible. -
Could Tariff Stalemate Hurt Corpus Christi-Area's LNG Industry?
Jul 13, 2018 | Corpus Christi Caller-Times
By Chris Ramirez
Energy experts in Texas worry the United States' trade war with China could have a chilling effect on one of its biggest importers of American natural gas. -
Drilling Plan near Corpus Christi Water Supply Draws Critics
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Trump administration is preparing to lease more land for oil and gas development near a reservoir in South Texas that's already home to several leaking gas wells. -
Feinstein Shifts on Fracking as Dems Struggle with Messaging
Jul 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Sen. Dianne Feinstein supports a fracking ban in California, signaling a shift to the left as she fights to fend off a liberal challenger. -
Kavanaugh Nomination Could Complicate Hazardous Chemicals Lawsuit
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Brett Kavanaugh is up for a job at the U.S. Supreme Court, but he has unfinished business at his current employer, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. -
Duke Energy Hit by 650M Cyber Attempts to Breach Systems in 2017
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Duke Energy Corp. was hit by more than 650 million cyber attempts to breach the utility’s systems in 2017, the company’s executive in charge of cybersecurity said July 13. -
Changes on tap at U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
After a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). -
Short Line Safety Institute Launches Hazmat Training Program
Jul 13, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
By Daniel Niepow
It’s been five years since the tragic derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that claimed the lives of 47 people. -
CEQ Pick Neumayr Heads to the Hill
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Nick Sobczyk
Mary Neumayr, President Trump's nominee to lead the key White House environmental office, will be on Capitol Hill this week. -
House Voting on Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure: 'Pass the Popcorn'
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The House will vote this week on an anti-carbon-tax resolution, a perennial piece of legislation that this year will serve as a key test for the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. -
House to Vote on Measure Denouncing Carbon Tax
Jul 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House is set to vote as soon as next week on a measure that would condemn the idea of a carbon tax. -
Panel to Vote on Reforms to New Source Review Program
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
As EPA pursues a series of incremental administrative changes to its New Source Review permitting program, a House panel is set to mark up legislation tomorrow that would more fundamentally remold the Clean Air Act cornerstone. -
EPA Rejects Groups' Call For Strict Pulp Mill Rule, Opening Door To New Suit
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has denied environmentalists' petition seeking to revise and strengthen its 2017 air toxics rule limiting emissions from the kraft pulp mills sector, opening the door to a new suit just as the advocates face an “uphill battle” to get a federal judge in California to require the agency to overhaul the rule.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Markup of Veteran's Health and Chemical Assessment Legislation
Jul 18, 2018 | The House Science, Space and Technology Committee
-
Hearing on Interior-EPA Funding Legislation
Jul 16, 2018 | The House Rules Committee
-
Hearing on Government Overhaul
Jul 19, 2018 | The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
Markup of New Source Review legislation
Jul 17, 2018 | The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment
-
Hearing on Carbon Tax Resolution
Jul 17, 2018 | The House Rules Committee
-
Jul 16, 2018 | Plasteurope
The trade war between the US and China (see Plasteurope.com of 06.04.2018), which has escalated to the point where punitive tariffs are being levied on goods valued at USD 50 bn, could heat up further. The US government has announced that it is examining a 10% customs duty on additional imports from China, totalling USD 200 bn. This could come into force in about two months' time.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC, Washington, D.C. / USA; www.americanchemistry.com) is concerned this move would have a substantial impact on petrochemicals and the plastics industry. This is because the list includes the feedstocks needed to produce many types of plastics, such as olefins (ethylene, propylene and butadiene) and aromatics (benzene, xylene and toluene) as well as other key substances like chlorine and MEG.
The ACC says the announcement marks a "stunning and unfortunate development for US manufacturers and consumers." Unilateral measures that alienate established trading partners and isolate the US from world trade are "very unlikely to change China’s unfair practices." The chemical industry – which, according to the ACC, is directly or indirectly linked to 96% of all manufactured goods – clearly benefits from productive trade relations with China. The association urges the US administration to "create a strong, multilateral coalition to bring an end to this unnecessary trade war."
The backdrop to this plea is the major investments made in US petrochemicals and plastics production over the past few years. Considerable portions of new PE volumes that are just going on stream are destined for China. With the planned US measures, the Chinese can be expected to launch immediate countermeasures to thwart US plans. That would undoubtedly lead to turbulence on the global market, including in Europe, since trade flows would be subject to major changes. Players on the PET market are starting to experience what this can mean, since the flow of goods has undergone an abrupt change there too, albeit for different reasons.https://www.plasteurope.com/news/WORLD_TRADE_t240183/
-
Transcript of E&E News' Interview with Andrew Wheeler
Jul 13, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender and Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sat down with E&E News for an interview at the end of his first week on the job.
Since taking charge of the agency after Scott Pruitt's resignation, Wheeler has been taking calls from lawmakers and meeting with EPA staff. He's already made subtle changes to how the agency operates, from posting online his daily calendar to opening up a hallway leading to his office that his predecessor once kept closed.
Pruitt's agenda of regulatory rollbacks will likely remain at EPA under Wheeler's watch. The acting chief, however, has no plans to revive a "blue team, red team" debate exercise on climate science, which Pruitt once heralded. He also wouldn't delve into "parsing the numbers" on how much humans contribute to climate change.
Wheeler, who was with lobby firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting before joining the agency this April as deputy administrator, is also trying to ensure he avoids conflicts of interest with his past lobbying work and said he wouldn't meet with his most famous former client, coal giant Murray Energy Corp., as well as others. He did note he had lobbied on EPA issues in the past, although he couldn't say when exactly, and called himself a former "energy and environment lobbyist."
Wheeler also described how he would manage the agency, saying he values the staff's work and wants to maintain EPA's technical expertise. He also touched on his personal security — one of Pruitt's hallmarks at EPA — saying his protective detail has the appropriate level of security and it would be "expensive" to tear down the secure phone booth installed in the administrator's office, which he hasn't used yet.
Below is a lightly edited transcript of E&E News' interview with Wheeler.
How is your first week going?
I think it's gone all right. It's been a little crazy. ... I had a full calendar for the next couple weeks, and Administrator Pruitt had a full calendar, and so we tried to combine the calendars, and then plus there's a lot of additional things that I needed to do this week, like the all hands meeting Wednesday. And I've talked to probably a dozen congressmen and senators that wasn't on either one of our calendars, so it's been triage on the calendar side.
At Wednesday's meeting, the career staffers here were excited that the hallway outside the administrator's office was open. Do you intend to keep that hallway open?
I intend to keep it open. I guess it was probably in one of your publications, I read an anonymous EPA employee complaining about that a few weeks ago in an article, saying how they used to walk through it all the time and if they had outside visitors, they would show them the hallway. I was going to talk to Administrator Pruitt about it, but then when I took over, I just went ahead and opened it up, because it should be open. Employees should be able to walk through there.
Is that part of a broader transparency push on your part, or was it as simple as opening the doors to a hallway?
To me, it was as simple as opening the doors to the hallway. ... But I think that kind of goes to my underlying transparency, my own personality there.
You have said you believed in climate change. Do you think that human emissions are the driving factor there?
I think human emissions contribute to climate change. I'm not going to put a number. If you say the driving factor, then that's assuming it's a certain number. ... I'm not going to get into the parsing the numbers.
Are you going to pursue plans for a "red team" climate debate?
No.
Why not?
I don't believe Administrator Pruitt was pursuing that any longer, either. In fact, he and I didn't discuss that since I've been here, but I don't see the point of it at this point in time. We're moving forward on replacement for the [Clean Power Plan], we've sent a proposal over to [the White House Office of Management and Budget], so we're moving forward on that front, and I think it's more important to focus on the regulatory side.
On the Clean Power Plan replacement, I wonder if you can speak very broadly on the parameters of what you'd like to do.
I want to follow the Clean Air Act. I don't think the Obama proposal or regulation followed the Clean Air Act. I think that's why the Supreme Court took the unprecedented move to issue the stay, so we're sticking within the four corners of the statute.
On the policy barring active EPA grant recipients from serving on the EPA advisory committees, do you plan to continue that?
I do. I haven't really looked at that, but fundamentally, I believe we've been meaning to make sure that people who serve on those boards don't have a conflict of interest. It's my understanding that's what that policy was trying to get to, making sure that you don't have somebody on the advisory board recommending that the EPA go down a path where they're already doing their research and getting money from the EPA. I am very careful on conflict of interest, which is why I did not seek any waivers at all for any of my lobbying conflicts. I have recusals in place, and I did not seek any waivers. I said during my confirmation process I did not anticipate seeking any waivers. I haven't, and I still don't anticipate any waivers being necessary. I want to make sure I don't have any conflicts of interest, and I think the people who serve on our science boards shouldn't have a conflict of interest.
Since you did lobby for the coal industry, how do you ensure that there aren't conflicts of interest there given that there's so much that you do that deals with coal?
I did not lobby the EPA on behalf of my coal client for — our press guys were actually asking me last week how long has it been. I'm not even sure how long it's been. It's been a minimum three or four years. I don't remember the last time I lobbied EPA on behalf of a coal issue. And it's been, the last coal issue, the EPA coal issue that I lobbied Congress was to support the [Congressional Review Act] on the Clean Power Plan, and that was outside the two-year look-back that the ethics officials take into consideration. But I haven't lobbied at all for almost a year now. But as I said in my speech Wednesday, the No. 1 issue I lobbied on behalf of the coal company in the last four or five years was the Miners Protection Act, which was to shore up the pensions and the health care benefits for the coal miners. I lobbied a Department of Interior issue for the coal industry, for the coal company. But I've gone through all of this with our career ethics people, and they don't see any conflicts. I will not meet with my former client, and I am not meeting with my former law firm. I'm not meeting with any of my former clients that I've worked on over the last two years.
You were referring to Bob Murray of Murray Energy?
Bob Murray, Murray Energy, but my other clients as well. I'm not meeting with any of my former clients, and I'm not meeting with anyone from my law firm.
Do you remember the last time you did lobby EPA and what it was about?
My last meeting at the EPA was not a lobbying meeting. It was on behalf of a company that just wanted more information about one of the programs. So that wasn't lobbying. I honestly don't remember. It could have been on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District because I did come in and meet with Gina McCarthy with them, but that was when she was assistant administrator for air. I lobbied some EPA issues. I did lobby the Department of Interior, and I lobbied at [the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs], but at OIRA, those were Interior or Department of Labor issues. I don't even remember the last time that I lobbied an EPA issue with the administration.
Do you intend to follow through with the "secret science" policy that would require that EPA only rely on studies for rulemaking where the data has been made public?
That was proposed before I got here. I'm going to take a hard look at it. But I cut my teeth at the agency working on the Community Right-to-Know Act, and I really fundamentally believe the more information we put out to the public as far as what we're basing our regulations on, the better our regulations will be. I think it's important to get all that information out. At the same time, there's HIPAA requirements to make sure that you're not disclosing personal information about individuals involved in studies, and I want to make sure we safeguard that, but other agencies do that. FDA publishes the information they use as the basis for their regulations. Yes, I want to move forward with that. I don't know if the final is going to look exactly like the proposal. We're receiving comments, the comment period is still open and we can't prejudge any of that. But fundamentally, I do believe that the more information you put out to the public, the better the regulatory decisions will be and the better understood the regulatory decisions will be by the public.
What would you say to EPA scientists who have felt concerned under this administration about their work perhaps being censored or not being valued by agency leadership?
I'm telling them every day that I value their work. When I went down to [Research Triangle Park] I spent a day down there. This was my first visit off the main campus. I did that on purpose, and I met with a lot of the researchers and I'm excited about the work that they're doing. A day after I got back, I met with my counterpart from Canada [the deputy minister of environment and climate change], and I invited him to go back to RTP with me, I said you really ought to see what our scientists are doing down there.
On the renewable fuel standard, how do you balance the priorities of farmers and the oil and gas sector?
Our responsibility is to follow the letter of the law. The balancing between the two is done in crafting the legislation and any changes to the program, fundamental changes have to be done legislatively. We're going to follow both the letter and the spirit of the RFS program. There are issues, I would love to see more stability in the [renewable identification number] market, but we want to make sure that the one thing this administration has done and Administrator Pruitt and our team and Bill Wehrum over in the air office have done is gotten the [renewable volume obligation] numbers out in time. The previous administration, I think, was two years behind at one point. So we're committed to doing that and that brings a lot of stability to the marketplace and that's what we want to provide on the RFS program: stability.
There was a round of buyouts last year, and the Trump administration and the Trump White House has proposed budget cuts for EPA. How much do you think EPA needs to be downsized and where?
My biggest concern on the EPA personnel side is taking a look at the people who are eligible to retire. I think about almost a third of our workforce is eligible to retire over the next five years. My concern is to make sure that we have — that we maintain — the technical expertise that we need and that we recruit people to step in with the right technical expertise so that we don't have any gaps or holes in the EPA personnel. So that's my biggest issue, and that's how I'm looking at the personnel side. Our acting Deputy Administrator Henry Darwin, who's working a lot on the management side, is looking into these. He and I have sat down and talked about the issue and the problem with so many retirees coming up. We do not have a full-time human resource director, a permanent human-resource director. We are recruiting for that. Henry and I and the chief of staff sat down with the chief of staff at [the Office of Personnel Management] about three or four weeks ago to try to get some additional help on the recruiting side because we really need to have somebody in here who can take a hard look at what our needs are and to make sure that we're looking out. I want to make sure that we don't have huge gaps five years from today.
Do you think EPA should be eliminated and its authority delegated to the states?
Do I think that EPA should be eliminated? No.
Do you consider yourself to be an environmentalist?
Yes.
Why do you say that?
I've always considered myself to be an environmentalist. I'm an Eagle Scout. I go hiking, I go camping, I've always done that. My favorite job I've ever had in my life was being the nature conservation director at a Boy Scout summer camp when I was in college in Ohio. The camp was right outside of Dayton, Ohio. I'm reserving judgment on this job to see if this will be my new favorite. But so far that was my favorite, although it only paid $1,000 for the entire summer. Actually I think the third summer I did it was $1,500. ... I did it three summers when I was in college. ... It included the tent and the mess hall, if you can call that room and board. It was fun. The most fun I've had at a job.
Do you have a 24/7 personal security detail?
I have the appropriate level of security that the security detail says I need at this point. And if I go into too much detail, if I publicize that I don't have 24/7, then that could create a security issue. ... I would think if I announce to the world that I don't have 24/7, then people might start showing up in the middle of the night.
Have you used the secure phone booth?
Have I used it? No, I have not used it yet.
What are your plans for it? Do you have any plans for it yet? Have you given it any thought?
It's there. It would be expensive to tear it apart, I don't see any sense in tearing it apart. And in this day and age, I don't know what the assessment was for the need of it. I did look into the cost of the booth after I got here. Administrator Pruitt asked me to look over the expenses for his office and in doing that I decided the best way would be to pick a case study and take a look at it to see how the decisions were made. So I looked at how the decisions were made on the spending for the booth.
When the cost of the security detail came out recently, there was a commitment to release the cost figures for payroll and travel expenses for the administrator's security detail every quarter. Do you want to keep that policy disclosing those figures going forward every quarter?
I'd have to talk to the security detail to see if that's a security issue. I don't know and I didn't realize that commitment had been made.
Administrator Pruitt issued a memo that basically top officials would sign off on any expenses of $5,000 or more, including you as deputy administrator at the time. Are you going to keep that process in place?
Yes, I am keeping that in place and the acting deputy, Henry Darwin, and the CFO [chief financial officer] and the chief of staff. Two of the three of them will sign off on any expenses over $5,000.
Senior career employees who worked in the administrator's office were demoted or reassigned after reportedly raising questions about spending decisions made by the office. Do you plan to review those personnel decisions at all?
I have not taken a look at those issues. I know several of those people are no longer here.
Generally, there have been claims of retaliation against whistleblowers.
If there's any active investigations along those lines, I'd have to defer to those investigations and what may come out of those, and I can't prejudge something like that. ... But I take accusations of retaliation very seriously, and I would want a full investigation of those.
Can you talk about your long-term career goals? Do you have any plans to run for office? Political aspirations?
No, I do not have any political aspirations. I haven't thought beyond being acting administrator. No, I have no political aspirations at all.
What don't we know about you yet? We know you've been a coal lobbyist. What else should we know about you?
You know I've been an energy and environment lobbyist.
Any pets?
I do not have any pets. I'm allergic to cats and dogs. I love dogs.
Any hobbies?
I enjoy camping and hiking. I'm going hiking tomorrow with a couple of friends. I like being outdoors. I love traveling. I enjoy cooking, including baking. I've baked a few cakes since I've been here for staff.
Can we see the secure phone booth?
It is in a storage closet, and it does not look that impressive. It looks like a phone booth. I've not used it yet.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/13/stories/1060089083
-
New EPA Head Andrew Wheeler Vows to Be ‘Stabilizing Force’ After Pruitt Turmoil
Jul 15, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Timothy Puko
Energy companies and trade groups harbor one big hope for the new leader of the Environmental Protection Agency: a steady hand.
Gone is Scott Pruitt, an outsider who became famous for multiple scandals, political ambition and antagonizing the agency he led. His acting replacement as EPA administrator, Andrew Wheeler, has been a Washington insider for almost 30 years. Before becoming Mr. Pruitt’s deputy in the spring, Mr. Wheeler was a behind-the-scenes adviser, lobbyist and policy wonk, known for being friendly even to junior staffers and strident political foes.
Messrs. Pruitt and Wheeler have both pledged allegiance to President Donald Trump’s deregulatory agenda, but supporters hope the latter’s style will make it easier to realize. Mr. Wheeler, 53, says he wants to avoid the distractions that have plagued the EPA in recent months. “I do want to be a stabilizing force,” he said during an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Wheeler takes over an agency beleaguered by conflict, at a time when it seeks to shift from announcing rollbacks to more detailed policy work to make those rollbacks stick. Businesses and industry-association officials say the administration’s need for a change agent has given way to the need for an expert who can mobilize the bureaucracy, oversee complex rule making and forge alliances.
“It is sort of an ideal transition. You’re bringing in the mechanic who’s been under the hood and understood how things have worked for years,” said Rich Gold, head of the public-policy group at Holland & Knight LLP, a law and lobbying firm. “Andy is a serious person and is much more formidable to environmentalists and Democrats in terms of finalizing agency actions that can survive challenges.”
Mr. Wheeler’s ascension puts him atop the agency where he started his career in Washington nearly fresh out of law school in 1991. Since then he has spent 14 years in the Senate, most of it leading Republican staffs on environmental committees with EPA oversight. He spent the last nine years as a lobbyist, often for energy companies, including the coal miner Murray Energy Corp., whose owner has been a major donor to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
For his second full week in the agency’s top job, Mr. Wheeler is planning to issue a memo announcing the return of internal reviews for all regulatory proposals, as was the norm in the George W. Bush and Barack Obama years. Though slower, the process is designed to ensure that what the agency churns out is on firmer legal footing.
“When the new rules come out, you’ll see a lot more t’s crossed and i’s dotted,” said Stephen Brown, chief lobbyist at Texas-based oil refinerAndeavor Corp.
That prospect is a big relief for industry lobbyists who have expressed concern that environmental groups could win court challenges that undo the Trump administration’s environmental agenda. One of the main criticisms directed at Mr. Pruitt was that some of his regulatory changes had already lost in court, while others appeared vulnerable because his team hadn’t laid out enough of a legal rationale or evidence for their new rules.
Mr. Pruitt’s proposal for loosening tailpipe-emissions limits—one of his biggest proposed rollbacks—became one of the starkest examples. The filing was all of 38 pages long, including graphics provided by industry trade groups. Lobbyists criticized it for failing to include enough of EPA’s own research and technical data. By comparison, the Obama-era proposal it was designed to replace was 268 pages long, with a 719-page technical support document.
In announcing that policy, Mr. Pruitt invited allies to fill the meeting room, many holding signs and cheering his proposal. It was a common tactic for Mr. Pruitt’s team, which limited some reporters’ access to major news announcements while inviting supporters from groups like conservative think tanks.
Mr. Wheeler, by contrast, has spent the past few weeks doing interviews with reporters, calling members of Congress and meeting with some environmental groups. The first three legislators he reached were Democrats, and he pledged to go to more meetings and hearings on Capitol Hill to repair a relationship that deteriorated under Mr. Pruitt.
“I’m not going to get lasting changes in programs by just talking to my friends,” Mr. Wheeler said.
The moves are part of Mr. Wheeler’s concerted effort to change the agency’s tone. While many Democrats and environmentalists are skeptical about Mr. Wheeler because of his connections to coal and the energy industry, some have expressed cautious optimism.
“We have no illusions that major policies are going to change. We’re going to disagree,” said Collin O’Mara, president and chief executive of the National Wildlife Federation, one of the environmental groups Mr. Wheeler met with in recent weeks. “But he tends to be more collaborative. He gets experts involved in decision making…There are going to be some areas where we can make progress.”
At the end of Mr. Wheeler’s first week in charge, he held an all-staff meeting where he called the agency’s career staff the “most dedicated” in government and praised their passion for protecting the environment. That stood in contrast to Mr. Pruitt, according to some of his supporters who said his mistrust of career staff kept him from effectively mobilizing them to advance his agenda.
The scandals made all of that worse, some said. They became a distraction, drew extra media scrutiny to Mr. Pruitt’s push for deregulation, and dented his claim to be working for the public good, said Mr. Gold of Holland & Knight. The administration’s supporters say they hope Mr. Wheeler’s experience and friendlier style will take the agency out of the spotlight.
“There’ll be a lot less drama. The media probably won’t find him as interesting as they found Pruitt,” said Michelle Bloodworth, the new president and chief executive of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal-industry advocacy group. “We couldn’t think of a better person to replace Pruitt.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-epa-head-andrew-wheeler-vows-to-be-stabilizing-force-after-pruitt-turmoil-1531656001?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2
-
New EPA Chief Draws Sharp Contrast to Pruitt
Jul 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Andrew Wheeler quickly made waves in his first week as the interim head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), drawing a sharp contrast with his predecessor.
Wheeler was tapped to lead the agency last week when scandal-plagued Administrator Scott Pruitt stepped down.
In his short time at the EPA’s helm, Wheeler had made a show of trying to patch up relationships with career employees, the media and Democrats, all of whom felt slighted by Pruitt. All the while, Wheeler has made it a point not to criticize Pruitt.
He’s also sought to put an emphasis on the environmental and public health missions of the EPA and committed to new transparency measures.
“He’s doing a great job,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for whom Wheeler worked for more than a decade as a senior aide in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
“He is making an effort to be different than anyone else,” said Inhofe, who also counts himself as a proud ally of Pruitt. “Because he knows the job, and it seems that he can connect with people and listen to them. He’s doing a great job.”
But Wheeler, who used to lobby for energy companies including a major coal producer, has also made it clear that he won’t stray from the highly controversial EPA priorities of the Trump administration and his predecessor, including rolling back regulations and improving relationships with regulated industries like coal.
The early changes under Wheeler though have given rise to cautious optimism among Democrats and career agency employees, who were so angered by Pruitt's tenure that almost any replacement would have been an improvement for them.
“My sense is that he has begun to reach out to the rank-and-file employees of the EPA, to try to convey to them that he values them and the work they do, which would probably be a little more than they’ve heard in the last 18 months,” said Sen. Tom Carper (Del.) the top Democrat on the Environment Committee. “And I think that’s a positive thing.”
Other Pruitt foes, like environmental groups, though point to Wheeler’s policy plans, and see more of the same, minus the ethics and spending scandals.
“While he likely won’t be ordering used Trump hotel mattresses or renting a condo from lobbyists, Wheeler so far gives no indication he will clean up the most serious scandal of Pruitt’s tenure: Undermining health protections for American families as a favor to politically connected industries,” said Keith Gaby, chief spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, referring to two of Pruitt’s controversies.
Wheeler has been working on environmental policy in Washington, D.C., for more than a quarter century, having started in the early 1990s in the EPA’s toxic substances office.
“I know that many of you developed a passion for the environment at an early age and pursued a career at EPA for that reason,” he told the agency’s 14,000 or so employees Wednesday.
“Just like me, you came to EPA to help the environment. I know first-hand how dedicated and passionate you are and it is a privilege to work alongside you and lead EPA in its vital mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
He later worked on Capitol Hill for 14 years, and then the private sector, doing consulting and lobbying for more than a dozen clients, including coal-mining company Murray Energy Corp. and uranium producer Energy Fuels Inc.
His experience stands in contrast to Pruitt’s. While both men have fought Democratic environmental efforts, Pruitt had little experience in environmental policy, save for having sued the EPA 14 times, mostly unsuccessfully.
Wheeler ascended to the EPA’s top spot Monday thanks to Pruitt’s July 5 resignation announcement. Pruitt left after months of building scandals over his ethics and spending decisions, including allegations that he assigned staff to carry out personal tasks like finding lotion for him and that he rented a condo at below-market-rate from a lobbyist.
Wheeler hit the reset button on Day One. His spokesman John Konkus, said that day he would bring a “change of tone” in communications and promised more transparency.
In the following days, four of the top aides to Pruitt said they were resigning, although one had made her decision before Pruitt stepped down.
Wheeler spoke to staff Wednesday and invited numerous reporters, which was very rare under Pruitt.
“I will start with the presumption that you are performing your work as well as it can be done. My instinct will be to defend your work and I will seek the facts from you before drawing conclusions,” Wheeler said.
Wheeler also remarked that “you can't lead unless you listen” — a line Pruitt also used in his February 2017 inaugural speech.
Sources familiar with Wheeler’s arrangements say he eschewed Pruitt’s 24-hour security detail and instead returned to the set-up of his predecessors, in which guards mostly drive him between destinations. He also reopened to staff a big corridor in his office suite that Pruitt had closed off.
Career employees, who were openly hostile to Pruitt, showed some optimism after his first days.
“I was impressed with his openness and his understanding of how the career staff have felt over the last 18 months,” said one career worker. “I have cautious optimism that morale will improve.”
Another was less forgiving of Wheeler, but still found room to give him credit.
“I appreciate his background, as it mirrors my own. But in addition to our different perspectives on regulation I don’t believe he can address the poor career managers that ... don’t manage staff,” the employee said.
But while the tone is different, the policy is the same.
Wheeler made clear in his speech that major Trump administration priorities like deregulation and increasing “certainty” for business in the name of creating jobs would continue.
“Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt, we have made tremendous progress over the past year and a half,” he said.
Wheeler said the EPA is “restoring the rule of law, reigning in federal regulatory overreach and refocusing [the agency] on its core responsibilities. As a result, the economy is booming and economic optimism is surging.”
As an early example, the EPA indicated it would not walk back one of Pruitt’s final actions: a decision to not enforce new limits the Obama administration put on sales of trucks with older engines that bypass recent pollution standards, known as glider trucks.
Green groups say they won’t give Wheeler a pass over such policies.
“The next administrator of the EPA needs to restore public trust in the agency, let it fulfill its mission, and clean up Scott Pruitt’s mess, but Andrew Wheeler is doing nothing but following in Pruitt’s dirty footsteps,” Maura Cowley, director of the Sierra Club’s Resist campaign, said in a statement.
“Wheeler looks a lot like Pruitt 2.0, and no one should have confidence that he will do what is necessary to keep our families safe from the corporate polluters who signed his paychecks just months ago.”
Republicans, however, are glad to have Wheeler at the helm and to have Pruitt’s scandals largely behind them.
“Let me tell you, Andrew Wheeler knows more about that job than anyone in America today,” said Inhofe.
Wheeler is limited to 210 days as acting administrator. By that point, the administrator must be someone nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate.
Asked he would support his nomination, Inhofe said he saw no reason not to back him.
“He worked for me for 14 years, why wouldn’t I support him?”
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s environment subpanel, said he was glad Wheeler called him during his first week on the job, which he saw as a good sign for his tenure.
“It’s a new day,” he said. "Let’s give him a chance to see what he can do."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396985-new-epa-chief-draws-sharp-contrast-to-pruitt
-
Subpoena Sought Over Allegations EPA Mishandled Records Requests
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Environmental Protection Agency manipulated its handling of open records requests so that documents from the Obama years got priority over those involving the agency’s embattled former chief, Scott Pruitt, and other Trump administration officials, according to congressional interviews with EPA staffers.
The agency also allowed political appointees to review some planned responses to requests lodged under the Freedom of Information Act, according to interview excerpts cited by Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat.
“EPA is using a process in which political appointees review FOIA requests and hand select requests to be processed by a different team if they are complex or ‘politically charged,’” Cummings said in a letter to Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, who heads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Responses to FOIAs are at times deliberately delayed, and political appointees review responses to FOIA requests before they are released.”
The Oversight Committee is looking into allegations of questionable spending and travel by Pruitt, who resigned last week after months of damaging revelations over his conduct in office.
Cummings, the panel’s top Democrat, wants Gowdy to issue a subpoena compelling the EPA to provide documents detailing the agency’s process for vetting and responding to open records requests. Recent congressional interviews with EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson and former Associate Administrator Samantha Dravis raise questions about how the agency is fielding those inquiries, Cummings suggested.
Jackson confirmed, according to Cummings, that the EPA is using a “first-in, first out” policy in which requests involving the current administration are delayed in order to respond to requests from previous administrations. The effect is to chip away at what Jackson described as a 10-year backlog of requests—but at the cost of delaying responses to timely requests about the current EPA leadership and activities.
Barrage of RequestsUnder the Freedom of Information Act, government agencies are responsible for providing requested public records, with some exceptions.
The EPA has been barraged with open-records requests since President Donald Trump entered the White House in January 2017, and amid intense and growing scrutiny of Pruitt. The Sierra Club went to court over the issue, accusing the EPA of failing to respond to its requests, with the litigation resulting in the agency releasing thousands of pages of records that helped shine a light on Pruitt’s activities at the EPA.
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.
At times, the EPA Office of Public Affairs got involved in determining which FOIA requests would be processed, Cummings said. Those deemed “politically charged” may have gotten more scrutiny, EPA staff told investigators.
Some of the practices may have predated Trump. More intensive review of FOIA requests began under former President Barack Obama, Jackson told investigators.
The Sierra Club’s request was identified as politically charged because it was relatively open-ended, Jackson told congressional investigators, according to Cummings’ letter.
“There was no reason for it. There was no topic,” he said. “It was just a fishing expedition.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/subpoena-sought-over-allegations-epa-mishandled-records-requests
-
Interior, EPA Fights Take Center Stage
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss, Kellie Lunney and George Cahlink
Long-simmering battles over energy and environmental policy will play out on the House floor this week as the chamber takes up fiscal 2019 spending for the Interior Department and EPA.
The two-bill "minibus," H.R. 6147, expected on the floor midweek, contains the $35 billion Interior-Environment spending bill that passed the House Appropriations Committee along party lines in June, as well as the Financial Services-General Government bill.
The Interior-Environment portion is equal to the funding level Congress enacted in fiscal 2018 and is $7 billion more than what the Trump administration requested (E&E Daily, June 7).
The House Rules Committee will meet this evening to review the more than 230 amendments that have been filed to the bill, which include 163 filed just to the Interior-EPA title.
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) said he expects "quite a few" of the amendments to be approved for floor debate, something he noted was par for the course for what has been one of the most problematic of the 12 annual spending bills.
"I think we're in pretty good shape," he told E&E News on Thursday. "There's nothing we haven't seen before."
This week's debate comes as House and Senate leaders are hoping to complete as much of the appropriations process as possible before the end of the fiscal year. In doing so, they are packing the bills into minibus packages.
Both chambers have already approved a three-bill package that includes the fiscal 2019 Energy-Water Development measure, although efforts to reconcile the competing bills hit a snag last week when a funding shortfall for veterans' health care derailed the first meeting of a formal conference committee.
Appropriators on both sides of the Capitol said they were confident a resolution would be found in time for that meeting to be rescheduled this week (E&E Daily, July 13).
It's unclear what the Senate's next move on appropriations will be. There's been speculation that the Labor-Health and Human Services measure will be combined with the Defense Department's spending bill.
But Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) was noncommittal on what's next and when, noting that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would make the final call.
Before breaking for the weekend, McConnell set up a series of votes on executive branch and judicial nominees (see related story).
Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said she continues to press for that panel's bill to see floor time for the first time since she assumed the top GOP slot on the subcommittee years ago.
"Hopefully before the end of the month," she told E&E News on Thursday, knocking on a nearby wooden dais.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the Senate will likely follow the House's lead and take up the Interior-Environment minibus "shortly thereafter."Amendments
Many amendments filed last week to the House bill's Interior section relate to hot-button issues confronting the department, including oil and gas drilling, national monument designations, endangered species listing and spending, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's proposed reorganization.
Several proposals from both parties would block or severely limit offshore drilling or related activities along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Members of the Florida delegation in particular filed multiple measures to protect the coastline of the Sunshine State from leasing and drilling.
A Democratic measure from California Rep. Jared Huffman would deny spending for energy exploration in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge approved as part of the 2017 tax reform law.
The Endangered Species Act unsurprisingly attracted opposing proposals from Republicans and Democrats.
A Democratic proposal from Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia would strip all provisions from the bill limiting implementation of the Endangered Species Act; GOP provisions would seek to put new limits on ESA spending and keep certain wildlife off the endangered or threatened list, including the lesser prairie chicken.
However, an amendment from Florida Republican Vern Buchanan would restore $7.9 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service for new ESA listings by reducing the Office of the Secretary's budget by the same amount.
Conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, are keeping track of the amendments, particularly the ESA-related ones, and are waiting to see what the Rules Committee approves for floor consideration this week.
Other notable proposals filed to the Interior section would prohibit spending for changing or revoking national monuments established by the 1906 Antiquities Act.
Separate amendments filed by Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego would prevent appropriations for carrying out President Trump's 2017 proclamation to reduce the size of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah or from being used to issue permits for mineral exploration on lands within the monument's original footprint.
A similar measure from Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen would ban funds from being used to change the designations of Gold Butte National Monument and Basin and Range National Monument, both in the state.
Other amendments would:
Block an Obama-era rule limiting methane venting from being implemented by the Bureau of Land Management. A Democratic amendment would ban money from delaying implementation of the rule.
Exempt national forests in Alaska from the Roadless Rule.
Strike sections of the bill that prohibit judicial review of several California water management projects, including the WaterFix tunnel project.
Ban funds to make changes to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement well control rule and production safety systems rule. That measure has bipartisan support.
Add $2.5 million to the Interior inspector general's budget.
Prohibit money for the construction of a border wall in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
Ensure no funds are used to reduce access to recreational hunting or fishing on public lands.
Prevent funds for trophy hunting permits authorizing importation from any country of an elephant or lion trophy from Zimbabwe, Zambia or Tanzania.
Block spending on the reassignment or transfer of Interior Senior Executive Service members.
A separate Democratic proposal would prevent money to carry out Interior's reorganization unless Indian tribes have been "meaningfully consulted" and their concerns addressed.
Require Interior to obligate funds in the bill no later than 60 days after its enactment.
Democrats, and some Republicans, have expressed concern over the department's delays in disbursing fiscal 2018 appropriations. Maine Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree filed the amendment.
Ensure no money is spent to install "a private phone booth in or near the office" of the Interior secretary. The bipartisan amendment from a trio of Floridians is a nod to the controversial $43,000 secure phone booth former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had built in his office.
Pruitt-related amendments
Several amendments are aimed at keeping Pruitt allegations in the spotlight:
A Democratic proposal would bar the EPA administrator and Interior secretary from keeping multiple calendars.
A Democratic proposal would require the EPA administrator and his deputy to disclose all travel costs within 10 days.
A bipartisan proposal would block the Interior secretary from installing a private phone booth in or near his office.
A Democratic proposal would bar EPA from issuing any final rules proposed by Pruitt until the inspector general completes several ongoing ethics reviews of this tenure.
Other amendments would:
Ban blocking public access to federal climate change studies and information.
Block biomass from being labeled as carbon neutral.
Deny funding for studies on the social cost of carbon.
Remove language repealing the Clean Water Rule.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089175
-
Software-Based Chemical Screen Could Minimize Animal Testing
Jul 13, 2018 | The Scientist
By Anna Azvolinsky
Worldwide, millions of animals are used for toxicity testing of compounds intended for human and environmental use. Now, toxicologists have developed software that can accurately predict the outcomes of these assays.
The researchers compiled information from public databases including PubChem and the US National Toxicology Program on 10 million chemical structures and existing chemical safety data to develop an algorithm that was at least as reliable than animal testing itself. The tool was 87 percent accurate in predicting animal testing results, while repeating the animal tests was only, on average, on-target 81 percent of the time. The results were published this week (July 11) in Toxicological Sciences.
“There is no doubt that this is an innovative approach,” Fiona Sewell, a program manager in toxicology and regulatory sciences at the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animal in Research in the U.K. who was not involved in the work, writes in an email to The Scientist. “Time will tell whether, in practice it delivers a reliable alternative to methods based on experimental animals.”
“I am extremely optimistic about this and other similar tools to limit animal testing,” says Andrew Rowan, chief scientific officer for The Humane Society of the United States who was also not involved in the work. “Using animals to predict human safety is significantly flawed and very expensive. It takes three years to do comprehensive testing while a tool like this takes minutes.”
For a fee, Illinois-based Underwriters Laboratories—an independent, global safety science company that partly funded this work—has already made the Hopkins team’s software available to companies wanting to screen their products prior to submitting safety data to regulatory agencies for review.
Many countries including the United States have regulatory agencies oversee new chemicals for commercial and environmental use and for consumer products, requiring the submission of at least some safety data. At the same time, many countries also are pushing to limit the use of animals in producing those data.
In 2008, the US National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) together initiated Tox21 to develop more efficient and timely non-animal toxicity testing. In 2013, the European Union put in place a ban on animal testing for cosmetic products and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) encourages alternatives to animal testing. And in 2016, the US government passed an update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which states that federal agencies need to help reduce and replace animal safety tests that industry conducts and submits to regulators.See “Animal-Free Toxicity Testing”
To develop their new software tool, Thomas Hartung, director of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins University, and his colleagues initially showed that of the 9,801 chemical substances they analyzed, those with similar structures generally had similar safety data. The researchers used a database of profiled chemicals that were made publically available through the ECHA, following the enactment of the REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) law, enacted in 2007, which mandates that companies identify and disclose safety and risk information on the substances they manufacture and sell.
For the current work, the team added data from additional databases to have the algorithm make 50 trillion pairwise comparisons of 10 million compounds. Using the available safety data, including that from animal testing, the developers then built a model that they compared to safety results from six animal tests for each chemical.
Their analysis revealed redundancy in animal testing. Two chemicals were each independently tested more than 90 times and the databases contained data on 69 chemicals that were each tested more than 45 times, often independently by different companies.
The multiple, independent test results were valuable in developing this tool, which showed “a high degree of uncertainty among the animal test results,” Christopher Grulke, a chemoinformatics scientist at the EPA, writes in an email to The Scientist.
To come up with the algorithm, the team incorporated both the animal testing results and 74 chemical property categories to come up with their safety predictor model. Overall, the software was as good at predicting the safety results of a chemical as was the animal tests, and in some cases, the software did a better job.
There are limits to this method, which has not been shown to reliably predict more-complex toxicities that can manifest in the long-term, including the risk that a chemical compound causes cancer, says Hartung. “Such methods may or may not prove to be as predictive for long-term complex toxicology,” adds Grulke.
If the results of this digital chemical-similarity analysis are combined with additional biological data that can uncover the mechanisms of toxicity, “we could do a much better job of predicting human hazards and risks than using animal testing, which should be much more appealing to regulatory agencies that using modeling alone,” said Rowan.
According Grulke, the agency “supports moving to non-animal approaches as they prove their applicability to chemical safety decision making,” and has been working towards this goal internally. The EPA is currently evaluating this new software along with additional algorithms from other research groups. These tools were all provided to the EPA at a recent Acute Toxicity Workgroup at the US Department of Health and Human Services and are part of a global effort to minimize animal testing.
According to Hartung, the FDA is also in the process of analyzing and testing this new software.
Rowan is encouraged by the new effort. “This is a relatively inexpensive way to test chemicals and I would like to see lots of people use this tool to predict toxicity outcomes. I started promoting animal testing alternatives 42 years ago and never dreamed that I would, within my career span, be able to predict the end of most animal testing, but that goal is now in sight, and with better outcomes for humans.”
Hartung says the team is now working to refine its algorithm and include data on the biological effects of compounds to incorporate not just acute toxicity but also more complicated safety endpoints. “This won’t be the end of all animal testing,” says Hartung. “But this is an important step to take the bite out of it.
”https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/software-based-chemical-screen-could-minimize-animal-testing-64491
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Europe’s Chemical Industry Learned to Love REACH
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Europe’s leading chemical industry association, has made a U-turn in its view of REACH, Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals legislation. After years of kicking and screaming to resist REACH—the biggest and most expensive body of chemicals regulation ever introduced—Cefic has emerged as its biggest advocate.
Cefic Director General Marco Mensink and his colleagues now argue that if chemical firms around the world buy into a REACH-style system, which requires safety data on individual substances, then European chemical firms will be able to show that their products are among the safest and should face fewer barriers to trade.
This attitude marks an about-face in Cefic’s approach to REACH, industry critics say. REACH was conceived in the 1990s as a way to regulate chemicals in the European Union and encourage substitution of dangerous substances. It entered into force on June 1, 2007, and is administered by the European Chemicals Agency, or ECHA.
“When the concept of REACH was introduced, there was an element of scaremongering on the industry side,” recalls Axel Singhofen, adviser on health and environment policy for both the Green Party and the European Free Alliance party in the European Parliament.
That may be, but Cefic is keen to leave such history behind. “Going in peace might not be the worst way for the industry and the European Chemicals Agency to go together,” Mensink told delegates recently at the Helsinki Chemicals Forum, a meeting on European chemicals regulation.
The heads of Cefic and ECHA formalized their positions at the Helsinki meeting by agreeing to an alliance on REACH. They signed a joint agreement to cooperate further on improving the implementation of REACH by sharing chemical safety data and striving to improve the scientific assessment of some substances.
A key benefit of the alliance for industry is ECHA’s agreement to bring its experts and those from industry together to discuss critical issues about a substance ahead of any regulatory decision or ECHA opinion.
The alliance was formed just weeks after the May 31 deadline for chemical companies in Europe to register hazard data on thousands of chemicals they produce in volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons per year. The deadline, the third of three, marks the completion of the regulation’s multi-billion-dollar, 10-year program of data gathering for more than 21,000 existing chemicals.
Cefic hopes the alliance will lead to a streamlining of the process of registering chemicals under REACH, making it more straightforward for companies outside Europe to adopt. Meanwhile, ECHA is encouraging regulators outside the EU to adopt their own REACH-style chemical management systems.
The U.S. is one country that is not about to join the REACH hug-in. Mensink pointed out that at last month’s annual meeting of the American Chemistry Council, the main trade association for the U.S. chemical industry, CEO Cal Dooley hailed the U.S. regulatory environment as a key competitive advantage over Europe.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, the central piece of U.S. chemical regulation, is less prescriptive than REACH. It also fits with President Donald J. Trump’s desire for a light touch in the regulation of business.
Indifference to REACH by the U.S. wasn’t the only gripe Mensink aired. Promoting the regulation in other parts of the world also faces challenges, he said. One problem is that REACH has plenty of detractors in its own backyard. Some European member states fail to acknowledge that REACH ensures product safety, he said.
“Not everyone is yet on board,” Mensink said. “Not everyone likes the way industry operates. Member states should support the outcome of REACH.”
The Cefic leader also took aim at environmental groups that publish alternative lists of chemicals to those recognized as substances of very high concern under REACH. These are a distraction and undermine REACH, Mensink said. “Don’t make alternative lists,” he warned.
For REACH is to be highly regarded around the world, public criticism of the chemical data dossiers that companies submit to ECHA also needs to stop, Mensink said. Rather, ECHA should give industry “a few years” to ensure all the data dossiers meet the required standard before ECHA reviews them, he said.
Mensink’s wish list extends to the education of other countries by the European Commission on the benefits of REACH. “We need a smart foreign REACH policy,” he said. “The EU should put some money on the ground to explain what REACH is.”
If chemical companies from outside Europe are to take REACH seriously, better enforcement is needed to ensure that chemicals imported into the EU comply with the regulation. “You have to make sure you enforce it, following up with checks at borders. There is no benefit for the REACH brand if we comply in Europe but do not do checks on imports,” Mensink said.
ECHA acknowledged some of Mensink’s points, albeit with a less combative tone. Bjorn Hansen, ECHA’s recently appointed executive director, highlighted the need to work with the European chemical industry to promote a competitive environment and encourage innovation through REACH. One way ECHA could facilitate such competition is by working with industry to identify at a far earlier stage whether a new or existing substance is toxic, he said.
ECHA is also looking at ways to make the data generated under REACH more usable for industry. One example is improving the usability of safety data sheets, which stipulate how certain substances should be managed and handled, Hansen said.
Whether REACH or REACH-like standards make their way beyond Europe’s borders ultimately may be out of the hands of Cefic and ECHA and instead in those of the banking sector. Banks increasingly will require chemical firms building new plants to have first-class compliance with regulatory systems and environmental standards—such as REACH—in place, said David Williamson, associate director and head of environment and sustainability for the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development, speaking at the event.
Related: REACH deadline looms, industry is warned
Cefic, though, isn’t relying on the banks. It is urging the EU to encourage chemical regulators around the world—especially China, with its huge chemical industry—to adopt REACH-style regulations. The introduction of a communications center for REACH in China, as proposed by industry in Helsinki, may not be far away.
https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-chemical-industry-learned-love/96/i29
-
Markup Set on Bill to Revamp Assessment Process
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Colleen Luccioli
Key Republican lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will have their chance to push reforms to EPA's controversial chemical assessment process.
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) have blasted EPA's approach to reviewing the dangers posed by chemicals and called into question the scientific integrity of the agency's assessment program.
This week, the full committee will mark up Biggs' draft proposal to reform chemical evaluations.
The duo has previously raised grievances with cases in which the agency hasn't agreed to reconsider Integrated Risk Information System assessments opposed by industry. IRIS is an electronic database with information and characterizations of the health concerns related to chemicals found in the environment.
One such case involved a formal "request for correction," or RFC, submitted by Denka Performance Elastomer, a chloroprene manufacturer that "has spent more than $18 million on pollution control and been subject to reputational damage" because of EPA enforcement actions, the lawmakers said in a letter to then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (E&E Daily, Oct. 13, 2017).
Another case involved EPA's decision to reject a 2013 correction request from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, which argued IRIS "chose to rely upon an inaccurate study as the primary basis for its conclusion" that the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) is a highly dangerous chemical.
The agency subsequently moved to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of TCE in degreasing and dry cleaning operations — the chemical's two primary uses in the United States (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016).
Smith and Biggs described those assessments as "some of the more well-documented cases of the failure of the IRIS program to take additional scientific information into account."
Biggs' "Chemical Assessment Improvement Act" would shift the assessment process from IRIS to agency program offices.
Under the bill, any assessment carried out through IRIS would be instead carried out by the "relevant program office of the Environmental Protection Agency, so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089187
-
In N.Y., Farmers Think About What Might Have Been
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
When Kevin "Cub" Frisbie wants to see what shale can do for a place, all he has to do is get in his pickup and drive 15 miles south to Bradford County, Pa.
There, the pavement on the road smooths out. There are new hotels and a new Dunkin' Donuts. In front of the family farms, Frisbie, a farmer himself, will notice the new silos and equipment. "All this, there's just nothing but commerce going on, commerce going on," he said.
Crossing back into Tioga County, N.Y., Frisbie will pass the retired feed mill and the shuttered storefronts of Broad Street. He'll pass farms that he knows are right on the edge of survival, and he might pass the home of an old friend, a dairy farmer, who ignored a hernia for too long — and didn't have health insurance anyway — and died of surgery complications last year.
"Fifteen years ago, these two counties were very similar," said Frisbie, a grain and crop farmer who's president of the Tioga County Farm Bureau.
What changed, to him, is obvious: Pennsylvania allows fracking, and New York, under Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, banned it. "It's a desolate area, we could use some jobs, we could use some income. And he turned his back on us."
The counties that border Tioga to the south, Bradford and Susquehanna, rank in the top three gas-producing counties in Pennsylvania. But gas is providing no shelter in New York's Southern Tier, where the dairy industry has been wrecked by a four-year price slump. Small farms are closing and liquidating by the dozen. Anti-suicide resources are being circulated. Some farmers in other parts of the state have taken their own lives.
Frisbie, who sold his dairy farm years ago, said he doesn't think about it himself. But he understands. "When it gets in your head, you mentally don't want to do it anymore, that's a tough call. And that's where a lot of farmers' mentalities are now," he said. "That combine, if I jumped in that combine, I'd come out in pieces in the back in about 30 seconds. It'd suck your body in there, and you'd be all done."
This is one snapshot of life in New York's shale country, far from the rooms where energy policy is made and far from the urban centers that carry this state's voting power. The Southern Tier, a group of counties that border Pennsylvania, has been in economic decline for decades. But a decade ago, a promising opportunity seemed to come along: shale gas. Rigs sprung up across Pennsylvania, and some of the economic benefits even bubbled over into the Southern Tier.
For farmers in particular, it seemed like a godsend: Land was in demand, and land was what they had. Frisbie, and others like him, signed contracts trading access to their property for cash and royalties. At the time, many felt Cuomo was on their side, because he'd campaigned on revitalizing the upstate economy.
Instead, Cuomo took New York's energy policy on an anti-gas shift that's continuing today. As gas has become the nemesis of most environmentalists and many Democrats — even Republicans hesitate to bring it up — Cuomo has launched one of the most aggressive climate and renewable energy plans in America. After his 2014 re-election, he cemented the state's moratorium on shale gas production.
As for the Southern Tier, Cuomo has spent billions in an attempt to guide its economy toward new industries. But farmers here say they don't have the luxury of time. Milk prices are stuck in a four-year slump, and the state lost over 1,300 dairy farms from 2007 to 2017. New York dairy farmers see friends in Pennsylvania who, in the same market conditions, are pulling through with the help of shale.
Dan Fitzsimmons, who lives on a former beef farm in Conklin, about 5 miles from the state line, is homebound with rheumatoid arthritis. A decade ago, he lobbied to permit fracking in the Southern Tier. "We always knew the land was worth something. We'd struggled in our family to keep this farm for years," he said. "Turns out, it was worth millions, but we just can't touch it."
Dave Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group based in Pittsburgh, summed it up in two words: "Policies matter."
Remnants of a middle class
Technically, it's not true to say that New York never saw a shale boom. It did. It just didn't last.
Roughly a decade ago, as shale gas companies were discovering the extent and potential of what would become an energy revolution in the United States, these companies sent scouts to the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus, an organic-rich layer formed 390 million years ago, swept up from West Virginia through Pennsylvania, rounding to a close in New York's Southern Tier.
But the Marcellus' sweet spots weren't known yet, and the shale industry's "landmen" were prowling for prospects. If you had land, they had cash: a bonus per acre, plus royalties on any fuel produced. Frisbie said his contract with Fortuna Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Talisman Energy Inc., paid him $80,000 in the first year, just for the rights to his 200 acres.
Drilling rigs were already going up in Pennsylvania. If you were close, you could see them from New York.
A boom was underway, and some of that activity, for good or for ill, was spilling across the state line into the Southern Tier. The good: Retail outfits were bustling, and hotels and restaurants were overwhelmed with business. New businesses went up, their parking lots packed with white pickups — the preferred vehicle of the shale gas companies, known as exploration and production companies, or E&Ps.
The ill: heavy industrial traffic that was jarring for longtime locals. A few more fights at the local bars.
All considered, though, many in the Southern Tier saw it as better than the way things had been.
For much of the 20th century, the Southern Tier had a healthy economy and a middle class. Companies like IBM, Corning Inc., Philips and Westinghouse Electric Corp. anchored local economies with a mix of manufacturing and high-skill jobs.
Those workers were also consumers. It's not by coincidence that in 1967, the Arnot Mall, which grew to become the shopping draw of the "Twin Tiers" in New York and Pennsylvania, opened near Elmira, a manufacturing area in Chemung County.
But as manufacturing began to contract in the United States, the Southern Tier experienced a convulsion. Since 1990, its total employment base has declined by more than two-thirds, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Job growth continues to lag well behind the state average. By some metrics, the Southern Tier hasn't recovered from the Great Recession.
Kids keep leaving: According to census data, the share of 25- to 44-year-olds dropped 15 percent last decade.
When the first winds of the shale gale began to blow around 2008, it struck many — not all — as the best economic news they'd heard in a long time. It sounded as if there'd be jobs; taxes could ease up; new businesses would open. A manufacturing renaissance didn't seem out of the question.
For farmers, it would mean leasing and royalty checks.
"It frankly would've been like dropping a giant golden egg over the Southern Tier. I mean, that's what it was," said Karen Moreau, a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute who grew up on a mushroom farm and once worked on agriculture policy as a senior Republican staffer in Albany. "The governor, he's going to be an American hero."
They weren't just imagining it. Shale giants such as Chesapeake Energy Corp., XTO Energy Inc., Talisman and Royal Dutch Shell PLC had been leasing land in the Southern Tier. In 2011, Schlumberger Ltd., the world's largest oil services company, opened a center in Horseheads in Chemung County. In 2014, Williams Cos. Inc. brought in hundreds of pieces of pipe for a major pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York.
A question of regulation
The farmers liked their chances. At the time, "fracking" wasn't a partisan grenade. Pennsylvania's governor until 2011, Ed Rendell, was a Democrat.
Instead, the question before the state was how best to regulate it. New York had permitted oil and gas production in the state since the 1800s.
The novelty, in this case, was the method: drilling down, then sideways, and blasting this rock with water at high pressure. State environmental regulators wanted to review this "unconventional" method and whether to allow it at Pennsylvanian scale.
Under Democratic New York Gov. David Paterson, they were already in discussions with the shale gas companies on a model that would work under New York's tougher environmental regimes. In 2010, when then-Attorney General Cuomo won the governorship, that work passed on to his administration.
Cuomo, who had served President Clinton as secretary of Housing and Urban Development, had won the state by campaigning as an anti-corruption reformer and budget hawk. His father, Mario Cuomo, was a popular New York governor in the 1980s and 1990s, and the younger Cuomo liked to invoke his father as a progressive visionary who nonetheless could run an efficient government. Andrew Cuomo styled himself a moderate Democrat, someone who could get Democrats and Republicans to cooperate but could throw elbows when necessary.
He also pledged to deliver what previous governors had merely promised: an upstate revival. The Southern Tier wasn't the only place struggling. Throughout the state, in old industrial centers like Buffalo, factory shutdowns had sucked the life out of local economies. The only shelter seemed to be downstate, in and around New York City and on Long Island, where the economies were just starting to brush off the Great Recession.
The governor who turned upstate around wouldn't just be serving the public good of New York. They'd be turning around a part of the state that looks a lot like the Rust Belt — and have the credentials to go national.
"He seemed to me to be someone who wants to be someone who can work with people in Buffalo, people in Rochester, people who are in relatively conservative parts of the state," said James Battista, an associate professor of political science at the University at Buffalo. "Bridge New York and Ohio, New York and central Pennsylvania."
As a candidate, Cuomo hadn't taken a clear position for or against fracking. But the industry believed he was open to it.
In July 2011, he convened an advisory panel of state officials, environmentalists and industry representatives. In May 2012, he met with two industry representatives: Moreau of API and Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York.
Gill found Cuomo's comments encouraging. "He referenced the yogurt plant that went into upstate New York. ... A yogurt plant that generated 200 jobs, and it was touted as the greatest thing. Cuomo recognized that we could bring exponentially more jobs to New York state than that," he said.
According to Gill, Cuomo described the Southern Tier as a sort of "wedge" — a place to prove the technology out. "If we could just have a pilot project with five counties, whatever municipalities wanted drilling, then people see the sky is not falling," he said. "And you go from there." (The Cuomo administration did not respond to requests for comment.)
A bust, a superstorm and an election
When energy experts in New York try to explain what happened next, they point to several factors. One is that the U.S. shale gale proved stronger than anyone had expected. The market was oversupplied, and in 2012, natural gas prices fell into a funk from which they have never quite recovered. In Pennsylvania, dozens of rigs were taken off-duty, never to return. On the New York side, the pullback tempered expectations.
Also in 2012, Superstorm Sandy ripped across the Northeast states, knocking out power to millions. Sandy killed at least 48 in New York. Long Island's grid wasn't fully restored for two weeks. Cuomo, touring flooded homes and devastated infrastructure, said Sandy shaped his views on the threat of climate change.
In 2014, Cuomo rolled out a policy package called "Reforming the Energy Vision," or REV. It envisioned a complete reshaping of the state's power grid by 2030, with 40 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, 50 percent renewable electricity and the mass addition of "distributed energy" nodes that would bolster New York against future Sandys.
2014 was also an election year, the year of Zephyr Teachout.
Politically, Cuomo seemed to hold serve. Sandy had boosted his approval ratings. He was an incumbent governor in a state that, by the numbers, had recovered from the recession and whose downstate economy was thriving. In June, Cuomo had a 36-point lead over his Republican challenger.
But by summer, Teachout, a law professor, had emerged as a primary spoiler. Her budget campaign, built on blue-meat issues such as school funding and immigration, had galvanized the state's left flank. On fracking, where a mainstream Democrat might have hedged, Teachout opposed it in total. She called for Cuomo to ban it, calling it inconsistent with any serious strategy on climate change.
The Cuomo administration's shale gas review was lengthening, and the industry was getting twitchy. Cuomo, on the campaign trail, was confronting farmers with signs that said, "My land, my gas." Now he was increasingly seeing posters that said, "Ban fracking now." Anti-fracking groups didn't buy the industry argument that there was a safe way to conduct the practice. They cited Dimock, Pa., where in 2009 methane had leaked into water wells and one exploded. The 2010 documentary "Gasland" further persuaded them that the risks were greater than the industry was letting on.
Cuomo won the primary. But Teachout claimed about a third of the vote, with a strong showing upstate. Political observers say it was a sobering lesson for him. "A nobody from nowhere getting 36 percent of the vote, against the sitting governor in a Democratic primary?" one former lobbyist said. "Wait a second. What the hell's going on here?"
That November, Cuomo defeated Republican Rob Astorino, a county executive, handily. But his electoral map had changed significantly since 2010. Cuomo won in New York City and much of Long Island, the state's economic and population strongholds. Upstate went red, with pockmarks of blue in counties with cities and universities. In 2010, Cuomo narrowly lost Tioga County; this time, he lost by 21 points.
The next month, Cuomo held a public meeting to announce the conclusion on the fracking review. Cuomo sat at the center of a large table, flanked by health and environmental officials. It was a question of weighing the economic benefits against the environmental risks, he said.
"This is a highly technical question. This is not really a layman's question," Cuomo said. "I am not a scientist. I'm not an environmental expert. I'm not a health expert. I'm a lawyer. I'm not a doctor. I'm not an environmentalist, I'm not a scientist. So let's bring the emotion down, and let's ask the qualified experts what their opinion is."
They said the risks to public health and water supplies were too great to accept. They also noted that a state court had upheld localities' power to ban fracking. They recommended against allowing it.
"I get very few people who say to me, 'I love the idea of fracking.' Basically, they say, 'I have no alternative because there is no other economy for me besides fracking.' And that's where I think we should turn," Cuomo said. "What can we do in these areas to generate jobs, generate wealth, for people who can't pay their mortgage and can't pay their taxes, as an alternative to fracking?"
The fracking ban polled favorably, with 55 percent in support, according to Siena College. Even Republicans were about evenly split.
That same day, a state board announced that a racetrack in Tioga County, Tioga Downs, would not be approved to add a casino. (It received approval the next year.) The combination of announcements made it a traumatic day for some. George Miner, then the president of Southern Tier Economic Growth, told a local paper it was "like being punched in the mouth and kicked in the stomach."
Salvation through yogurt?
Ken Eaton closed his dairy farm in February. The cows are gone, the equipment is gone, and the lights are out in the barn. The two gas wells on his property, drilled in 2011, were never completed. "They're just sitting there, waiting for the state to change their mind," he said.
There's no short list of forces battering a dairy farmer in New York these days. Eaton isn't saying that fracking would have saved his farm. But so much has gone wrong over the last few years.
State data show that over 1,300 New York dairies have closed over the last decade. Dairy is New York's largest agriculture segment; about two-thirds of the state's farming revenue comes from it.
But since 2014, the price per hundredweight of Class 1 fluid milk has fallen by about a third. Both supply and demand trends are behind the drop; dairy farmers have increased production per cow, but demand is flattening, partly because consumers are switching to alternatives like almond and soy milk.
Cuomo has been aware of the structural challenges in farm country, and he's variously proposed pivots to yogurt, hemp, hops and beef. Cuomo's first "yogurt summit" was held in 2012. The state had recognized a growing demand for Greek yogurt, which uses three times the milk of regular yogurt. The company with the largest market share, Chobani LLC, was headquartered in Chenango County in the Southern Tier.
Cuomo held out financial incentives for the industry, and he relaxed regulations on small dairy farms to help them partake. As facilities popped up across the state, employment surged to about 9,500 by 2013. New York became the largest yogurt producer in the country that year.
The hope was that this industry would soak up some of the milk surplus. It did, but it's been no salvation.
"People don't realize that the price of milk that goes to yogurt is several dollars less per unit than fluid milk," said Lindsay Wickham, an area field supervisor for the New York Farm Bureau. Fluid milk is the highest-value product; milk for yogurt is a grade below that. Desperate to sell any product at all, farmers had been switching to a discounted product.
"In theory, it seemed like the right thing, and it was," he said. "But in the long term, it just has not worked out."
In 2016, one of the yogurt plants that had been heavily subsidized by the state shut down. It hasn't reopened yet, although a new owner has pledged to. Cuomo's critics point to the plant as typical of his economic development strategies. Instead of advancing a business that's privately driven — shale — Cuomo spent public money on an expensive misadventure, they say.
"When people are getting excited about a yogurt plant that creates 200 jobs, [shale] is exponentially more exciting," said Gill, the lobbyist for New York's independent oil companies. "But not anymore."
Going further
Few New Yorkers are aware of it today, but the state is a major natural gas consumer. About half of the state's power capacity runs on gas, with some of it using oil as a backup. In the more urbanized parts of the state especially, local utilities are trying to connect more homes and businesses to gas. They say it's cheaper for consumers and that, where it replaces oil, it reduces air pollution.
But since the 2014 ban on fracking, Cuomo has taken New York on a path increasingly committed to zero-carbon fuels and increasingly inhospitable to carbon-based ones. The state's trace coal generation is being phased out, and Cuomo has attempted to block multiple gas projects that would draw supplies from Pennsylvania.
New York has set up subsidies to build offshore wind and retain nuclear power, and its work on small solar arrays and batteries is some of the most developed in the country. The net effect of these policies is that New York enjoys fracked gas without any of the benefits, or drawbacks, of producing it. Consumers are also financing the transition.
Yet there remains a vocal contingent of New Yorkers who think Cuomo should go further. In this year's gubernatorial race, their avatar has been Cynthia Nixon, the actress best known for her role on "Sex and the City."
Nixon, who's challenging Cuomo for the Democratic nomination, has called him soft on issues like sexual harassment, school funding and marijuana legalization. In April, she tweeted that as governor she would "not approve any new use of fracked gas in New York State" — any new pipeline or power plant associated with gas.
Cuomo, presiding over a growing economy heavily driven by downstate, led Nixon 61-26 percent in a June poll by Siena College. But in a state that's blue and moving bluer, Cuomo has had to again tack left from the positions he held a decade ago. "I don't build any fossil fuel plants anymore, and I banned fracking, and I have the most aggressive renewable goals in the country," he said in May, according to Politico.
Frisbie, who heads the farm bureau in Tioga County, is a Nixon supporter, though not for the reasons one might think. His long-shot scenario goes like this: Nixon scares Cuomo in the primary, runs as an independent and splits the blue vote. That opens the door for Republican nominee Marc Molinaro, a former county executive from upstate.
Molinaro's been open to fracking, if cautiously so. "If you can't mitigate the environmental impact, you can't be permitted, but if you can, you should," he said in March. "That's the way the law works in New York."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089117
-
Trump Said to Mull Tapping U.S. Oil Reserve as Pump Prices Rise
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration is actively considering tapping into the nation’s emergency supply of crude oil as political pressure grows to rein in rising gasoline prices before congressional elections in November, two people familiar with the situation said.
No decision has been made to release crude from the 660-million-barrel stockpile—known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve—but options under review range from a 5-million-barrel test sale to a larger release of 30 million barrels, said the people who requested anonymity to discuss non-public deliberations. An even larger release is possible if it were to be coordinated with other nations.
The national unleaded average gasoline price rose to $2.89 july 13, an increase of 63 cents from where it was a year ago, according to data from the American Automobile Association. The U.S. gasoline price average is expected to range between $2.85 per gallon and $3.05 per gallon through Labor Day, according to the group.
Price ConcernsAnd as prices close in on $3 a gallon, Trump hasn’t been shy about voicing his displeasure.
“Oil prices are too high, OPEC is at it again. Not good!” he said on Twitter last month.
On July 4, Trump tweeted: “The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $’s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!”
Oil has retreated since hitting a three-year high in New York at the start of the month, as the trade clash between the U.S. and China threatened economic growth. West Texas Intermediate—the U.S. benchmark—settled at $71.01 a barrel on July 13, up 26 cents for the day but down 3.8 percent for the week.
Analysts remain split on the effect such a release would have and how long it it last. Depending on its size and timing, an oil sale might leave the market unmoved, or have a real, if fleeting, impact on prices.
“I think a SPR release would have a psychological impact on the market, it may not translate into lower gasoline prices, but it would immediately bring down crude prices at least temporarily until the market adjusts,” said Joe McMonigle, senior energy analyst at Hedgeye Risk Management LLC.
A release of crude oil in September or October could cut gasoline prices for consumers ahead of the November mid-term elections. Trump also could use it as a tool to persuade buyers of Iranian oil to halt their purchases in the run-up to Nov. 4, when U.S. sanctions against the Islamic Republic are due to snap back.
A modest drawdown is already on the horizon. Congress has already mandated the sale of 11 million barrels starting as soon as Oct. 1.
“I would be very surprised if they were not thinking about it,” said Kevin Book, managing director of Washington-based consultancy ClearView Energy Partners.
“The DOE must begin planning its scheduled sales months in advance, so I suspect the timing of a scheduled sale as a market-management tool probably has been on their radar screens for weeks,” Book said.
BackstoryThe oil stockpile, which was created in the 1970s after the Arab oil embargo sent prices skyrocketing and forced Americans to ration gasoline, is mainly meant to be used in emergencies. But it has been tapped in the past to bring down domestic gasoline prices, such as by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, as well as to fund unrelated domestic legislation.
While Energy Secretary Rick Perry indicated he has no interest in utilizing the reserve, telling reporters last month it is “there for emergencies,” ultimately the decision is up to Trump.
The Energy Department declined to comment and the White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-said-to-mull-tapping-us-oil-reserve-as-pump-prices-rise
-
Jul 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
Oil and natural gas activity expanded “solidly” during the second quarter in much of the Rockies and the northern half of New Mexico, and exploration and production (E&P) companies in the region continue to have strong expectations for future development, albeit at a higher price, the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) of Kansas City said Friday.
The Kansas City Fed’s quarterly Tenth District Energy Survey provides information on current and expected activity among energy firms located and/or headquartered in the Tenth District, which includes the western third of Missouri; all of Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming; and the northern half of New Mexico. The 2Q2018 survey ran from June 15-29 and included 34 responses from district firms.
“Regional energy firms had another good quarter and continue to have strong expectations for future growth,” said Oklahoma City-based Fed Branch Executive Chad Wilkerson. “However, the prices needed for significant expansion to occur have continued to rise.”
During the second quarter, the drilling and business activity index decreased slightly to 26 from 37 quarter/quarter, although the future drilling and business activity index expanded to 61 from 50. After increasing during 1Q2018, the capital expenditures and employee hours expectations indexes moderated, but remained well above zero.
Positive readings in the survey generally indicate expansion, while readings below zero generally indicate contraction.
Meanwhile, price expectations for oil fell sequentially to 12 from 31, which a number of companies surveyed attributed to production increases recently announced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Respondents expect West Texas Intermediate crude oil to price at $67/bbl in six months, at $70/bbl in one year, at $73/bbl in two years and at $78/bbl in five years.
“Supply and demand for oil seem to be in fair balance,” one E&P executive said. “Currently, we see a little more downside pressure than upside due to potential increases in supply from the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia.”
Firms were asked about the level of business risk associated with lower operational activity, decreased oil demand, financing constraints, higher OPEC production levels and tighter regulation. Sixty-five percent of respondents anticipated a medium business risk from higher OPEC production levels, while more than 40% listed tighter regulation as a medium business risk.
As for natural gas, price expectations continued to expand moderately, increasing to 21 from 3 quarter/quarter. Natural gas prices were expected to be at $2.85/MMBtu in six months, at $2.90 in one year, at $3.05 in two years and at $3.34 in five years.
“The large supplies of natural gas and good wells keep prices low,” one executive said. Liquefied natural gas “will increase the values once they are online.”
Researchers also found that oil and gas companies were looking for higher prices in order to substantially increase drilling. The average oil price needed by responders in the 2Q2018 survey was $69/bl, with a range of $55/bbl to $90/bl. The average represented an increase of $7.00 from 4Q2017.
The average natural gas price needed was $3.60/MMBtu, with responses ranging from $2.00/Mcf/d to $7.00/Mcf, up one penny from 4Q2017 results.
Meanwhile, companies said problems finding workers and cost inflation could limit near-term growth. Specifically, firms noted difficulties in filling low- and mid-skill positions because of a lack of available or experienced applicants.
Roughly 30% of those surveyed also expected a lack of pipeline capacity for oil and natural gas to limit near-term growth, although most firms also reported strong capital spending plans.
“Permian Basin oil and gas pipelines are at or near capacity, which results in lower price differentials to index prices,” one executive surveyed said. “The threat of production curtailments are driving our business plans in the near future.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115055-higher-oil-natural-gas-prices-needed-for-stronger-drilling-response-us-operators-tell-kansas-city-fed
-
New York Fears FERC Bid To Bypass Court Scrutiny Of Pipeline GHG Reviews
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
New York Attorney General (AG) Barbara Underwood (D) is raising concerns that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may be seeking to bypass judicial scrutiny of its decisions not to analyze upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts for most natural gas infrastructure approvals, despite a court ruling requiring such reviews.
Underwood in a July 10 letter to FERC focuses on the commission's 3-2 vote May 18 to deny rehearing of a certificate it issued to Dominion Transmission allowing it to build a pipeline upgrade project in New York.
Because FERC raised the upstream and downstream GHG issues for the first time in its rehearing denial, Underwood notes that it will be difficult if not impossible for critics to file suit over the decision.
“The Rehearing Denial is procedurally and substantively wrong, and FERC should not adhere to it in the future,” Underwood says, adding that the major policy change was put in place in “a manner designed to frustrate judicial review.” The change involves “an issue of nationwide concern in a context that makes it virtually impossible to review.”
She also says the order is “pre-judging” a broad review the commission is conducting of its 1999 natural gas infrastructure approval process -- a review environmentalists have said should open the door to more rigorous consideration of GHG and climate concerns in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses of gas projects.
Underwood's letter comes as commissioner Robert Powelson (R) is slated to quit FERC next month after serving just one year of his three-year term, meaning the commission could now be deadlocked 2-2 on GHG-related issues and other concerns.
Powelson provided the deciding vote on the Dominion rehearing order denial, which included a broad new policy saying FERC need not consider upstream or downstream GHGs in NEPA reviews of most gas projects.
The policy came in spite of the fact that a federal appellate court ruled last August that FERC must consider downstream GHGs from a major pipeline in the Southeast. The commission had considered appealing that order to the Supreme Court but ultimately did not take that step.
While FERC's order denied rehearing of its approval for a single project, many say the broad language will affect other pipeline reviews going forward. In fact, Underwood notes that the same FERC majority has already relied on the denial “in justifying its refusal to consider the impacts of [GHGs] in the Mountain Valley Pipeline proceeding.”
FERC concluded in the rehearing denial that it was not required to evaluate upstream or downstream GHGs caused by the project as indirect or cumulative impacts under NEPA because such emissions were not “reasonably foreseeable” project effects and would not be limited to the project's precise “geographic scope.”
FERC sought to distinguish the Dominion project from the Southeast pipeline, arguing the later project had specific gas plant consumers for the pipeline while the more recent project does not have identified consumers. It also said the project would not necessarily boost natural gas production, which also depends on other factors such as gas prices and production costs.
APA Requirements
But Underwood notes that the original certificate approval for the Dominion project did not address any of those issues, resulting in only one party, a non-profit community group, seeking rehearing. Only that group can seek judicial review of the denial under the Natural Gas Act.
“By interjecting and resolving an issue that no one raised, the Rehearing Denial appears designed to avoid judicial review of the FERC majority's decision,” the letter says, adding that ending the policy was a “completely unnecessary” step in reviewing the rehearing request.
She adds that New York and others “that will be affected by the policy change have therefore had their rights to seek review of this broad policy change curtailed.”
Underwood alleges that FERC violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in how it made the policy change and says the commission should disavow the order and proceed with a notice-and-comment rulemaking if it wants to make such a change.
The letter cites FERC's separate ongoing review of its natural gas certification process as well as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's Aug. 17 ruling rejecting FERC's claim that GHGs are not a reasonably foreseeable effect of the transport of natural gas. She says the excuses for not conducting the GHG evaluation here are largely the same excuses rejected by the court.
“Coming only a few weeks after FERC initiated an open-ended proceeding soliciting comments on how it should consider upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in its review of pipeline applications, the Rehearing Denial suggests that the agency has pre-judged the outcome of that proceeding. To preserve the integrity of the certification policy change proceeding, and mitigate the violation of the APA, FERC should disavow the majority opinion of the Rehearing Denial and limit the determination to the instant proceeding,” she argues.
Environmental groups previously wrote FERC May 26 also asking it to rescind the order, while another May 31 letter from local groups accused FERC of misusing its authority to deny its NEPA obligations and deny a chance for due process in court.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-york-fears-ferc-bid-bypass-court-scrutiny-pipeline-ghg-reviews
-
EPA, FERC Need Bigger Roles in NatGas Pipeline Permitting, Senate Panel Told
Jul 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Executives from the oil and gas industry told a Senate panel on Thursday the Environmental Protection Agency and FERC needed to play bigger roles to ensure a fair regulatory climate to permit natural gas pipelines, adding that Congress may need to change some laws to help make that possible.
In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the executives appeared to agree with Republican assertions, from both panel members and officials within the Trump administration, that states opposed to natural gas pipelines are using Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act to try to block projects from being built.
"Regulatory uncertainty brought on by delay or, worse, deadlock at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is increasingly of concern," said Committee Chairman Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). "What's more, the denials of necessary state approvals for projects on political grounds, or the failure of other federal agencies to meet FERC-established schedules, are problems that must be addressed."
Other Senate Republicans agreed. "In some cases states have abused the authority to block projects for political reasons," said John Barrasso (R-WY), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "They're using that permit as basically a 'stop action' form, rather than dealing with clean water itself."
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said, "we've seen instances where one state can interrupt and shut down projects that are necessary to other states. We've seen repeatedly the abuse of Section 401 of the CWA to stop sensible projects...and Congress needs to take action on this."
Kinder Morgan Inc.’s Curtis Moffatt, general counsel, said FERC needed to be "more bold" in exercising its role as the lead agency in pipeline certification.
"More leadership out of the executive branch, from EPA, with clear guidance to the states when implementing their delegated authority, is welcome,” Moffatt said. "The administration needs to be in support of the entirety of the process. Guidance from the executive department to the executive branch agencies should be in sync with the administration's policies."
Former FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher, who now serves as an executive vice president at NextEra Energy Inc., testified that it was important for regulatory policies governing energy infrastructure development "be highly merits-based and nonpolitical, and that there be a reasonable level of regulatory certainty" with decisions made in a timely fashion. Although FERC is "ideally suited" to meet those goals, Kelliher said the primary challenge facing interstate natural gas pipelines was the siting process.
"Pipeline siting has become highly litigious, involving advocacy groups that are dedicated to blocking infrastructure development," Kelliher said. "Some states also have been very aggressive in their use of federally-delegated authority to effectively veto projects."
Kelliher, who was a Republican member of the Commission, said he supports FERC's review the 1999 policy statement on pipeline certification.
"I think after 20 years, it's reasonable to review whether the policies that are reflected in the policy statement are sound," Kelliher said. But while the "policy statement is sound and no major reforms are warranted," there were a couple tweaks that could be made.
"I think there's a need for FERC to be more transparent in the balancing of benefits and adverse impacts in their certificate orders. I think there's also a need for FERC to clarify whether and how environmental impacts should be weighed in this balancing, and whether environmental review is governed” by the National Environmental Policy Act “or by the Natural Gas Act itself."
When Daines asked what Congress could do to prevent states from using Section 401 "as a political pawn" to block natural gas pipeline projects, Kelliher said the law could be amended but added "it would seem to be arguably an unnecessary amendment to say [states] shouldn't include conditions that are completely divorced from water quality.
"It could be EPA guidance might be sufficient to explain what the limits are on state water quality permitting authority,” he said. Or, “it could be that there's a need for some kind of appeal...could there be a provision to appeal a state 401 permitting decision to EPA, and let EPA rule as to whether the state permit went too far afield."
Infrastructure Said Key To Grid Resiliency
Shortly into his testimony, Kelliher rebuked the Trump administration for backing subsidies to struggling coal and nuclear power producers. Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry has argued that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) presented to FERC last September was a necessary bulwark to maintaining grid resiliency, but FERC unanimously rejected the NOPR in January.
"Strengthening the energy infrastructure is the real resilience issue," said Kelliher. "The resilience associated with on-site fuel is insignificant by comparison."
Several pipeline projects remain in limbo over disagreement with state regulators.
Last month, Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC asked FERC for a two-year extension to build a proposed pipeline because of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) denial of a Section 401 permit. One month earlier, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. LLC re-filed for a 401 permit from the DEC for its Northeast Supply Enforcement Project.
Meanwhile, regulators in New Jersey have yet to issue a Section 401 permit for the PennEast Pipeline, and last May took the unusual step of asking a federal court to review FERC's certificate order authorizing the project.
And last Tuesday (July 10), FERC gave final authorization for Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC to enter its Valley Lateral project into service. Millennium and FERC had sparred with the DEC over the New York agency's refusal to issue a 401 permit for the project.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115054-epa-ferc-need-bigger-roles-in-natgas-pipeline-permitting-senate-panel-told
-
Could Tariff Stalemate Hurt Corpus Christi-Area's LNG Industry?
Jul 13, 2018 | Corpus Christi Caller-Times
By Chris Ramirez
Energy experts in Texas worry the United States' trade war with China could have a chilling effect on one of its biggest importers of American natural gas.
The United States has exported greater volumes of liquefied natural gas overseas as American liquefaction export facilities have come online.
Those facilities averaged 1.9 billion cubic feet per day of LNG in 2017, according to export data released Tuesday by the federal Energy Information Administration. Fifteen percent of that output went to China, making it the third-largest importer of American LNG, behind Mexico and South Korea.
China’s imports of U.S. LNG have averaged 400 million cubic feet per day through April 2018, the report said. The next-largest importer was India, which has received less than half as much as China so far in 2018.
Could that change?
Although the talk of tariffs doesn't directly involve LNG or other energy sources, a trade war has the potential to do harm to the region's fragile economy, said Jim Lee, the chief economist at Texas A&M-Corpus Christi.
Chinese tariffs on American imports also could undermine the Port of Corpus Christi's long-term growth potential.
"Even though China still accounts for no more than 20 percent of our LNG exports, it has been responsible for most of the growth in our LNG exports since 2016," Lee said. "Development in the rest of the world is simply not strong enough to offset any drastic drop in China’s demand."
The Trump administration Tuesday released a list of $200 billion in Chinese goods subject to 10 percent tariffs. China retaliated against previous tariffs with levies on U.S. goods.
Some worry about deep financial setbacks if tariffs shift to energy.
"The Eagle Ford (Shale) is well-positioned to supply natural gas for (liquefied natural gas) exports," said Omar Garcia, president/CEO of the South Texas Energy & Economic Roundtable."Any tariffs imposed related to the energy industry would drive up the cost of production and has the potential to inhibit future growth."
Cheniere Energy, which is building an LNG plant near Gregory, recently signed a 25-year Heads of Agreement to provide Taiwan's CPC Corp. 2 million tons of liquefied natural gas each year.
"This was a milestone in shifting the port’s direction of overseas shipments from Europe in the past to Asia going forward," Lee said. "The outlook on this front is now not so bright."
The Texas Oil & Gas Association has in recent weeks written letters to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, urging for guidance, even for exemptions for the energy sector.
Todd Staples, the agency's president/CEO, remained hopeful the two nations are able to work out their differences over what he termed "artificial constraints."
If enacted, tariffs could lead to significant market disruptions, loss of market share and the loss of jobs, Staples said. And that could have disastrous effects on Corpus Christi and its port, which is planning to undergo a massive ship channel improvement.
Staples said the Port of Corpus Christi is poised to play "an increasingly key role" in lessening America's trade imbalance with other nations.
https://www.caller.com/story/news/2018/07/13/could-tariff-stalemate-hurt-corpus-christi-areas-lng-industry/770905002/
-
Drilling Plan near Corpus Christi Water Supply Draws Critics
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The Trump administration is preparing to lease more land for oil and gas development near a reservoir in South Texas that's already home to several leaking gas wells.
At least four old gas wells are leaking at the bottom of Choke Canyon Reservoir, which supplies water to Corpus Christi. The upcoming oil and gas lease won't involve drilling in the lake itself, but environmentalists who raised the issue last year are concerned that new development in the area could worsen the leaks.
"They still didn't have a handle on whether those wells were causing any problems beyond just leaking," said Wendy Park, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Choke Canyon was built in the early 1980s, and it has hundreds of plugged oil and gas wells beneath its surface. It's one of three reservoirs that serve Corpus Christi, a port city with a population of about 325,000.
In the last decade, the area has seen a resurgence in drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale formation using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The city, which operates the lake, informed the Bureau of Reclamation about the leaking wells in 2016, according to documents obtained by CBD. City officials told the Corpus Christi Caller-Times last year that there's no evidence of water contamination from the leaks, but it isn't clear what kind of tests the city and bureau have conducted.
City officials have worked over the years to prevent oil and gas activity near the reservoir. The city filed a protest when the bureau offered about 1,600 acres near the lake for oil and gas drilling last year. City officials didn't return phone messages Friday.
The bureau is preparing to offer an additional 4,200 acres for oil and gas development in December, Mark Treviño, the bureau's area manager for Oklahoma and Texas, said in an email.
That's problematic, Park said, because the fracking process can sometimes cause leaks in older wells (Energywire, Oct. 21, 2015).
Treviño downplayed any problems at the reservoir, saying both the city and state energy regulators had looked into the leaks.
"The City continues to perform routine water quality testing throughout Choke Canyon Reservoir, and to our knowledge, no constituents of concern have been identified," he wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/16/stories/1060089113
-
Feinstein Shifts on Fracking as Dems Struggle with Messaging
Jul 13, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Sen. Dianne Feinstein supports a fracking ban in California, signaling a shift to the left as she fights to fend off a liberal challenger.
"I'm not for fracking, particularly with respect to California," the California Democrat told E&E News this week, breaking from her past positions on natural gas development. When asked whether she supports a ban, she said, "Oh yeah, absolutely."
Feinstein has previously stopped short of calling for a fracking ban, but that's changed as she tries to hold on to her seat in an election season that could see a groundswell of progressive voters who are carrying a hefty dose of disdain for President Trump.
She appears to be trying to keep pace. Former state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, a Democrat challenging Feinstein in November using the state's top-two primary system, has called for phasing out the state's reliance on oil and gas and switching to 100 percent renewables by 2045.
Her shift on fracking is representative of intraparty battles over climate messaging taking place as the 2018 midterm elections draw close and the 2020 presidential primary fight looms ahead.
The Democratic Party's energy policy occupies a large space, with one wing calling for an outright ban on oil and gas drilling while others take a more moderate approach. Following the unabashed support for fossil fuels by the Trump administration, Democratic positioning on fracking stands to be a thorny climate issue.
Feinstein's call for a fracking ban is a significant shift and a direct appeal to Democrats who want more aggressive climate action, said RL Miller, president of Climate Hawks Vote and a supporter of de León. She said progressives view a shift away from fossil fuel dependence as being equivalent to universal health care.
"One hundred percent renewables is the 'Medicare for all' of our time, which is to say some people are going to embrace it right off the bat, especially progressives, and others are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but that is the direction of the party," she said.
The Democratic Party's progressive wing has already achieved some formidable victories, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's upset of a 10-term incumbent and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus in New York's 14th District.
Democrats have also won in districts in which they have historically struggled to compete. In March, Rep. Conor Lamb (D) narrowly beat Republican Rick Saccone in a special election for Pennsylvania's 18th district. The seat was held by a Republican for 15 years.
Those two victories were hailed by Democratic Party officials as signs portending a blue wave in November. But they also represent a major divide on energy policy. Pennsylvania's robust natural gas industry means politicians like Lamb are unlikely to ever support a ban, yet it's a critical state for Democrats hoping to take back the White House in two years. Ocasio-Cortez, by contrast, has called for the nation to switch to 100 percent renewable energy by 2035.Democratic divergence
In Washington, the strains of a lack of cohesive Democratic climate policy are starting to emerge.
On Capitol Hill this week, a number of lawmakers declined to weigh in on whether they would support a fracking ban, an issue that the progressive wing of the party has made a priority, especially after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for it in the 2016 presidential election. Even some of the most vocal proponents of environmental actions had more modest goals.
"Our best focus is putting a price on carbon; that's the most significant thing to be done, and that's also the thing for most Republicans who have thought about climate come to as the correct solution," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who gives weekly speeches on the Senate floor on the importance of addressing climate change. "I think a lot of the other issues can be handled state by state. I do think the EPA has dramatically failed paying attention to the methane leakage into the water or the air, and that's a disgrace that needs to be fixed."
Democrats largely avoided discussing a fracking ban, whether to shoot it down or to endorse it. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) declined to comment on whether he would support a ban. So did Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey, two possible 2020 presidential contenders.
"I sincerely don't want to look to 2020. I think all of America should be focused on this moment and the November elections four months from now," Booker said. "We have a Supreme Court that could shift away on climate policy in a way that could hurt all Americans and undermine the ability of the federal government to stop polluters [and] to stop corporations from hurting our environment."
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said he would not support calls for a fracking ban and instead urged greater enforcement of regulations at the state level. He said he wants the larger Senate to embrace his bill that would require drillers to disclose the chemicals they inject into the ground during the fracking process.
"As long as you can have rigorous enforcement and regulation as we sometimes do in Pennsylvania — and that sometimes drifts, but we got to have [Department of Environmental Protection] enforcement in Pennsylvania; that's key," he said.
Feinstein isn't expecting immediate action on a fracking ban.
"It won't get done right now," she said. "A lot of this is timing, too, and at some point, you get tired of proposing things and they don't go anywhere; you have to use timing and bringing people together and having a movement going."
Her spokesman later clarified that Feinstein generally supports a ban on fracking, but particularly in California.A 'big tent' solution?
Voters don't typically list climate issues as a priority at the polls.
And in the current election cycle, Democrats have already shown that health care and immigration are motivating voters in the primaries ahead of the midterms.
And yet climate change has become more of an issue for Democrats than ever before, according to multiple polls. The Trump administration's rolling back of President Obama's climate policies and rejection of mainstream climate science have already motivated national marches. That means the Democrats' climate policy, and a fight over fracking, could become more of an issue in the 2020 elections than it was two years ago.
After Sanders called for a total ban on fracking and an aggressive push to ramp up renewable energy, he used the issue to attack Hillary Clinton while campaigning across New York, where Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo banned fracking in 2014 after years of pressure from environmental activists. After Sanders' comments, Clinton shifted her stance. She had generally followed the Obama administration's approach of treating fracking as a bridge fuel. She stopped short of calling for a ban but said, "I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."
Climate change ranked third among the priorities of self-described Democratic voters in a February poll taken by Civis Analytics, a data science and polling firm run by former Obama campaign staffers. Likely Democratic voters ranked climate change behind health care and gun control, and ahead of immigration, in the poll. A January Pew Research Center poll showed that 68 percent of Democrats believed climate policy should be a primary issue, up from 56 percent in 2016.
This week, a centrist Democrat group, New Democracy, launched a new push to craft a climate policy that includes all wings of the party. Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser and strategic adviser to New Democracy, said climate policy should be a "big tent" issue that avoids talk of bans but encourages the growth of renewables while also embracing natural gas drilling. He said Democrats have a wide-open field in which to stake their climate policy and that it extends from activists like 350.org's Bill McKibben, who calls for 100 percent renewables and fossil fuel divestment, to Trump's full-throated endorsement of all fossil fuel energy.
Energy and climate have become a cultural flashpoint, and the Democratic Party has to recognize that it can't afford to alienate voters in energy-rich states, Bledsoe said.
"The energy boom was largely created by the Democratic vision of bringing advanced technology to the energy sector," he said. "It's working. We're creating millions of new jobs, we're reducing emissions, we're growing the economy. Why aren't we taking credit for this?"
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/13/stories/1060088983
-
Kavanaugh Nomination Could Complicate Hazardous Chemicals Lawsuit
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Brett Kavanaugh is up for a job at the U.S. Supreme Court, but he has unfinished business at his current employer, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Kavanaugh, announced July 9 as the nominee to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the Supreme Court, heard arguments in 10 cases during the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s 2017-2018 term that haven’t yet been decided. One of those is a case involving an Obama-era regulation to prevent chemical explosions like the one that rocked West, Texas, in 2013, killing 15 people.
The Environmental Protection Agency has sought to postpone until February 2019 a regulation requiring more stringent emergency planning at facilities that handle large amounts of hazardous chemicals while it writes a replacement rule. The changes stand to save companies $88 million per year, but opponents warn they put 177 million Americans who live near those facilities at risk.If Kavanaugh decides to recuse himself from active cases due to his nomination, it sets up the prospect the case would need to be re-argued if the remaining two judges on the panel deadlock. That could potentially delay any decision on the legality of the EPA’s deadline extension until after it expires, letting the agency duck the question and finish its replacement rule.
But it may not be necessary to reargue the case if the remaining judges agree on the decision, legal observers said. If Kavanaugh were the lone dissent, or if the remaining judges reached a unanimous decision, the opinion will be issued without him, Jonathan Adler, a professor of law and the director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
No Legal RequirementWhile there is no legal requirement judges nominated to the Supreme Court stop tending to pending matters, in recent years they have recused themselves in order to focus on the confirmation process. Merrick Garland, chief judge of the D.C. Circuit, recused himself from active cases when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama.
Marilyn Sargent, chief deputy clerk of the D.C. Circuit, didn’t respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment on Kavanaugh’s status at the court.
Kavanaugh, along with Judges Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, and Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, heard March oral arguments in the chemical safety case, Air Alliance Houston v. EPA.
During oral arguments, Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of challengers’ claims, saying it seemed normal for the EPA to block the old rule at the start of the new administration.Kavanaugh’s absence may even speed the issuance of the decisions if he was the lone dissenting judge, Jody Freeman, the director of the environmental and energy law program at Harvard Law School, said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/kavanaugh-nomination-could-complicate-hazardous-chemicals-lawsuit
-
Duke Energy Hit by 650M Cyber Attempts to Breach Systems in 2017
Jul 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Duke Energy Corp. was hit by more than 650 million cyber attempts to breach the utility’s systems in 2017, the company’s executive in charge of cybersecurity said July 13.
“We fully recognize we are a high-value target for anyone who wants to do anything nefarious to critical infrastructure,” Brian Harrell, Duke’s managing director of Enterprise Protective Services, said at an event at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber and Homeland Security
“The fact that we have this statistic means that we are focused on it, we are looking at it, we are monitoring it, we’re penetrating our own system to ensure that we are moving the envelope,” said Harrell, who is also a senior fellow at the George Washington center.
“We’re trying to find the vulnerabilities before anyone else does, and I think that is the sign of a very mature program,” he added. He said the company is working closely with federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Duke, one of the largest utilities in the world, spent $200 million on physical security upgrades for many electricity substations over the past 18 months, Harrell said. He said the utility also is investing “millions and millions” of dollars into its cybersecurity defenses.
Duke provides electricity to 7.6 million customers in six states in the Southeast and Midwest regions of the U.S. It owns nearly 50,000 megawatts of generation including nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, and hydropower.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/duke-energy-hit-by-650m-cyber-attempts-to-breach-systems-in-2017
-
Changes on tap at U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Jul 16, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
After a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). She described her term on the board as a “fix-it” role for the small independent government agency, which investigates chemically related industrial accidents.
She refused to say exactly why she cut short her five-year board term other than a need for more time for her family. However, rail transportation company Norfolk Southern announced on June 25that Sutherland was joining the company as a vice president.
Sutherland took over board leadership in 2015 after a period when CSB was under attack by members of Congress and federal oversight agencies. U.S. President Barack Obama had called for the resignation of the board’s then leader, whom Sutherland replaced.
CSB stakeholders hoped that Sutherland’s arrival would calm the turbulence and let the agency refocus on what it does best—investigations that go beyond identifying degraded pipes or broken valves to reveal the deeper causes of incidents, such as a plant culture of ignoring safety alerts. As she departs, however, trouble may again be brewing.
Before Sutherland became chair, complaints reported to Congress by unnamed CSB staff alleged mismanagement and internal disruption. Criticism also centered on delayed accident investigation reports. When Sutherland arrived in 2015, six reports were incomplete, one of which stretched back six years.
In her first year, Sutherland emphasized clearing out these reports and declined to begin new investigations. CSB began new investigations again in 2016.
Now, as Sutherland departs, nine accident reports are in process—one of which occurred in 2014, before she took over the board. That accident at a DuPont site involved a chemical process mix-up in which methyl mercaptan was accidentally released, killing four workers. The incident led the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) in 2015 to label DuPont a severe violator of workplace safety regulations, a consequence that increased enforcement scrutiny and fines. However, CSB has yet to finalize its report.
Sutherland claimed that the nine outstanding reports are nearly complete—further along, she said, than were the six when she arrived. She added that an agency such as CSB will always have accident investigations in process.
Sutherland also embarked on a program more broadly to streamline investigations and issue more timely reports. Those changes are in flux, according to Kristen Kulinowski, the board member who took over as interim executive after Sutherland’s departure.
“I am comfortable in being able to step down at this time,” Sutherland said at the June briefing. CSB is in a place where new leadership can easily take the next step to make the board more efficient, innovative, and successful, she said.
Both Kulinowski and Sutherland emphasized the difficulty of running a small federal agency with merely 32 staff and an $11 million budget. The hiring and retaining of staff, long-term budgeting, and strategic planning have been extremely difficult for the board, which has never had sufficient funds to meet its investigative requirements under law. Federal reports have found the universe of accidents that qualify for CSB investigation can reach 150 or more a year, far beyond the half dozen CSB has resources to investigate.
Those preexisting challenges have been exacerbated under President Donald J. Trump, who has twice proposed eliminating CSB. In both cases, Congress stepped in to fund the agency and keep it alive, but the uncertainty has contributed to the agency’s instability, Sutherland and Kulinowski said. Additionally, the White House must nominate a new chair and other board members, and Trump is unlikely to do so. Of the three remaining board members, Manuel (Manny) Ehrlich’s and Rick Engler’s terms end in December 2019, and Kulinowski’s term ends in August 2020, just months before the next presidential election. By statute, CSB should have five board members.
The board also appears to be facing a revolt among some staff over declining staff numbers and fears that CSB is changing its mission. In interviews with C&EN and in an anonymous memo prepared by “six senior CSB investigators” and obtained by C&EN, CSB critics lodged a litany of complaints against board management. The critics allege reduced quality of accident investigations and reports, degrading working conditions, mismanagement, and waste.
In the anonymous memo, the senior investigators note that since Sutherland arrived three years ago, the number of accident investigators has declined through attrition and resignations from 20 to 12. Meanwhile, they continue, CSB hired five management specialists and human resources experts. The investigators also see a general trend toward briefer investigations and reports. They cite a growing focus by management on the immediate and direct cause of an accident, such as a broken pipe or gauge, rather than a detailed root-cause review that uncovers the overall conditions that led to an accident.
Such deeper investigations and reports have been CSB’s bread and butter. Many CSB investigations and reviews have revealed industry-wide poor practices, long-ignored company conditions, and regulatory shortcomings that led to an accident. Frequently, CSB investigators found that avoidable conditions that triggered deadly accidents had been discovered but not addressed by companies years before the accidents occurred. Investigators have also identified significant gaps in industry regulations. Companies or regulators are unlikely to point fingers at themselves, but uncovering such information lays the groundwork for safety improvements, according to several former and current CSB investigators.
In the memo and interviews, investigators say they believe expert peer and stakeholder review of draft reports will be curbed or eliminated. They are also concerned that a proposed shift to outsourcing report writing will reduce accuracy.
The staff also say tension between staff and management has been heightened by top managers recently brought in from other federal agencies. Those managers have devalued their work and have little experience in industrial accident investigations, staff say.
Kulinowski countered those allegations at the briefing and at a CSB business meeting in July, saying that hiring and replacing lost staff is her top priority. Her goal is to hire six new investigators over the next year, eventually bringing the total up to 22. Kulinowski also stressed that the focus on root-cause investigations will continue. But for reports to be relevant, timeliness must be improved, she said.
She added that she was unaware of staff complaints regarding top management. “I always have an open door,” she said, “and will listen to any staff complaint and take it from there.”
CSB is the only body worldwide dedicated solely to investigating large chemically related industrial accidents and publishing their causes. It makes recommendations without issuing fines or regulations. Other organizations examine industrial accidents, but they are regulators that issue fines or companies themselves. Neither are likely to reveal their own flaws.
CSB’s independence is a strength for the agency but also a problem that stretches back to its birth as part of 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. CSB was not funded until 1998, after a series of New Jersey industrial accidents. The accidents were investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA, but their reviews were slow and inadequate, leading then-president Bill Clinton to provide $3 million for CSB’s first year.
Since then, CSB has endured criticism and threats of elimination—with support frequently coming only after an accident with severe consequences for a plant, its workers, and the surrounding community.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Changes-tap-US-Chemical-Safety/96/i29
-
Short Line Safety Institute Launches Hazmat Training Program
Jul 13, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
By Daniel Niepow
It’s been five years since the tragic derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, that claimed the lives of 47 people. The disaster, which took place July 6, 2013, destroyed much of the small town’s downtown core after a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway crude oil train derailed and exploded.
Since then, the short-line industry has been making a concentrated effort to improve hazardous materials safety. Established in 2015, the Short Line Safety Institute (SLSI) is leading that charge.
The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) partnered with federal officials to create the institute with a goal of assessing safety culture among short lines and regionals that transport crude oil.
After performing more than 50 safety culture assessments, SLSI in late May rolled out a Hazardous Materials Instructor Training program that covers everything railroaders need to know about hazmat shipping, from paperwork requirements to placarding and emergency procedures. The program is designed to supplement a railroad’s existing training protocols, says Executive Director Tom Murta.
SLSI received a $500,000 federal grant to establish the program in August last year.
“We heard the industry speak: They desired more in-depth hazmat training,” says Murta.
The program comes in two flavors: instructor training — that is, working with top-level employees who will go on to train others at their railroad — and direct training, which involves educating all rail employees that are required to be trained under federal regulations.
The training is provided free of charge to ASLRRA members.
Late last month, SLSI held its first instructor training, which was hosted by the Iowa Northern Railway Co. in Waterloo and Manly, Iowa. The two events provided training for employees at five different railroads, says Amy Krouse, ASLRRA’s director of strategic communications.
And in late May, the institute held its first direct training program for New York and Atlantic Railway (NYA) employees in Yephank, New York.
NYA transports liquid propane gas used to heat homes and businesses on Long Island. Each year, the regional handles about 500 liquefied petroleum gas cars. For NYA employees, the SLSI program provided “deeply effective and credible training,” said NYA President James Bonner in an email.
“The third-party trainers offer firsthand knowledge to participants that reinforces that safety on the railroad begins with them,” he said, adding that he “wholeheartedly” recommends the program for other short lines and regionals.
SLSI’s training coincided with NYA’s own emergency responder training sessions for more than 400 local first responders, including police officers, firefighters and MTA Long Island Rail Road staff.
That extra training, held in May and June, gave NYA leaders the chance to “forge lasting relationships” with local emergency responders, Bonner said. As part of the first responder training sessions, participants learned about rail-car design, rail safety, emergency response procedures and the best ways to work with NYA in the event of an incident.
CSX, propane gas provider Paraco, environmental services firm Hepaco LLC and the Firefighters Education and Training Foundation provided support for the emergency responder trainings.
Meanwhile, SLSI is gearing up for more hazmat instructor trainings in the near future.
“Most of the training we’ll do in this funding cycle will be the train-the-trainer variety,” says SLSI’s Murta.
And each session can be catered to an individual railroad’s needs or concerns. For example, SLSI can cover safety considerations for a specific commodity that a railroad regularly handles.
The training sessions also cover ways to safely inspect a hazmat car being picked up from a shipper or at an interchange.
For SLSI leaders, the hazmat training program fills a much-needed gap, Murta believes.
“It’s long overdue,” he says. “We really hope we can continue for years to come.”
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/short_lines_regionals/article/Short-Line-Safety-Institute-launches-hazmat-training-program--55111
-
CEQ Pick Neumayr Heads to the Hill
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Nick Sobczyk
Mary Neumayr, President Trump's nominee to lead the key White House environmental office, will be on Capitol Hill this week.
On Thursday, Neumayr will appear before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for her confirmation hearing to lead the Council on Environmental Quality.
Neumayr joined CEQ in March last year. She is currently chief of staff. Before that, she racked up years of experience as a top congressional aide, including as deputy chief counsel for energy and environment, senior energy counsel, and counsel for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
She also worked in the George W. Bush administration as deputy counsel for environment and nuclear programs at the Department of Energy and counsel to the assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Neumayr has thus far kept a lower profile than Trump's last nominee for the job, Kathleen Hartnett White. The president first nominated Hartnett White, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former chairwoman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, for the CEQ job last October.
She had a tough confirmation hearing the following month when she was questioned over her doubting of climate change science and defense of carbon dioxide.
Trump renominated her for the position this year, but she soon withdrew after Democrats rallied opposition against her confirmation.
Neumayr will likely face tough questions, as well, at this week's hearing. Democrats will be eager to find out where she stands on climate change, EPW ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said last week.
She could also take heat on CEQ's proposed overhaul of its National Environmental Policy Act regulations, a set of guidelines that underpin environmental permitting across the federal government.
Neumayr has been key to that effort, which the administration sees as a crucial part of the president's deregulatory agenda.
CEQ began the process with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, laying out a list of 20 questions about some of the most consequential aspects of the NEPA standards (Greenwire, June 19).
But the agency immediately faced backlash from environmental groups, which said the 30-day public comment period was too short.
CEQ later extended it to 60 days, but Carper said the NEPA regulations will likely come up at the hearing. Democrats on the committee had prepared a letter to CEQ asking for an extension, Carper added.
Carper was a vocal opponent of Hartnett White's nomination. He said Neumayr — with whom he has met and had "a good initial conversation" — was an improvement over the prior nominee.
"I have a friend, and he asks me how I'm doing, and I always say, 'Compared to what?'" Carper said. "Mary, compared to Ms. Hartnett White, was definitely a step up. And she has to go through a hearing, and we'll see how that goes."
Appearing at the hearing alongside Neumayr will be former Rep. John Fleming (R-La.).
Trump has nominated Fleming, who is currently serving at the Department of Health and Human Services, to lead economic development at the Commerce Department.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089181
-
House Voting on Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure: 'Pass the Popcorn'
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The House will vote this week on an anti-carbon-tax resolution, a perennial piece of legislation that this year will serve as a key test for the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.
The resolution, from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would call a carbon tax "detrimental to the United States economy" and suggest that it could increase costs across the economy.
A spokeswoman said Scalise is "looking forward to a good vote," and Scalise said in a statement that the resolution "would yet again put Congress on record against a carbon tax."
It's a version of a similar measure that passed the House in 2016, when no Republicans voted against it, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, co-chairman of the Climate Solutions Caucus (E&E News PM, June 10, 2016).
This time around, the caucus will have 86 members — and 43 Republicans — likely enough to block the resolution. The vote is largely symbolic, but for critics of the caucus, it marks a crucial moment.
A vote in favor puts lawmakers on record as against what is widely seen by climate hawks as the best solution to global warming, vindication for detractors who see the caucus as a shelter for vulnerable Republicans looking to put a green notch on their belt.
"Absolutely, oh, hell yes," RL Miller, president of Climate Hawks Vote, said when asked whether she thinks it's a make-or-break moment for the caucus. "This is 'Please pass the popcorn!'"
Curbelo, for his part, suggested last week he wouldn't vote for this year's resolution.
"Protecting our environment and economic growth are not mutually exclusive," he said in a statement. "The resolution presents a false choice."
Meanwhile, the Citizens' Climate Lobby, the group behind the caucus, has been lobbying against the measure. The group is hoping to get some sort of bipartisan carbon-fee-and-dividend legislation introduced in Congress, either in the coming months or in the next session.
The issue at the moment is not whether Republicans support a carbon tax; it's that they're potentially taking an option off the table, said CCL spokesman Steve Valk.
"Obviously, if all Republicans vote for the Scalise resolution as they've done in the past, it makes it a little problematic — not impossible, but a little problematic — for any of them to sponsor our legislation," Valk said.
CCL issued a point-by-point rebuttal on its website when the legislation was introduced.
While energy prices would likely rise with a carbon tax, they could easily be offset by distributing the dividends to households, the group argues.
Still, the pressure will be on Republicans to vote for Scalise's resolution, particularly in an election year.
Some oil and gas producers, such as Exxon Mobil Corp., have come out in favor of a carbon tax, but a wide variety of right-leaning groups still oppose it.
"Energy is the engine of progress," Chet Thompson, president of the group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, said in a statement of support for the Scalise resolution. "Making it more expensive will hurt our economy and disproportionately impact middle- and low-income families who can least afford it."
A coalition of conservative and fossil fuel-backed groups also sent a letter last week to House leadership asking for a vote.
"A carbon tax is a policy with one definable goal: to raise the cost of traditional, reliable, affordable sources of energy," wrote the groups, which include the American Legislative Exchange Council, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute.
The resolution will hit the House Rules Committee tomorrow afternoon, when lawmakers are sure to engage in the first round of partisan squabble over the measure.
Leadership had been in talks behind closed doors last week about whether to bring it up for a vote, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Miller, who is among the most vocal critics of the Climate Solutions Caucus and calls its Republicans the "climate peacocks," said she thinks it will be a test of Curbelo's leadership.
"This is the time for the climate peacocks to show their true colors, whether they will flash their tails proudly in support of a carbon tax, or whether they are all squawk and no walk," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089179
-
House to Vote on Measure Denouncing Carbon Tax
Jul 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The House is set to vote as soon as next week on a measure that would condemn the idea of a carbon tax.
The resolution, introduced by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) in April, would express the “sense of Congress” that a tax on carbon dioxide emissions “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”
House GOP leaders posted the measure Friday on a list of proposals due for consideration by the full House next week.
The nonbinding measure mirrors one passed in 2016, shortly before the presidential election.
Since then, new efforts have emerged to try to convince Republicans — who generally either don’t believe that greenhouse gases from human activity are a big factor in climate change or don’t think the government should take action to mitigate global warming — that a carbon tax is a good idea.
They include a “carbon dividends” proposal backed by former GOP statesmen like former Secretary of State James Baker, former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
That proposal’s backers started pushing the idea last year, including in a meeting with White House aides to President Trump. Under their idea, all of the money collected would return to the economy through tax breaks or other means.
In addition, some conservative scholars support a carbon tax, as do major oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell.
To the GOP, the concept needs to be nipped in the bud.
In introducing the resolution in April, Scalise said it “would yet again put Congress on record against a carbon tax, which would result in massive job losses, lead to higher prices for American families and small businesses, and jeopardize America’s energy security.”
Scalise’s home state of Louisiana is economically dependent on the oil and natural gas industry’s offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, a sector that would likely face increased costs from a carbon tax.
The 2016 resolution passed 237-163, with all Republicans and six Democrats voting in favor of it.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396948-house-to-vote-on-measure-denouncing-carbon-tax
-
Panel to Vote on Reforms to New Source Review Program
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
As EPA pursues a series of incremental administrative changes to its New Source Review permitting program, a House panel is set to mark up legislation tomorrow that would more fundamentally remold the Clean Air Act cornerstone.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment will start with H.R. 3128, one of two bills introduced last year by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) to address the program, which requires power plants, manufacturers and other industries to get pre-construction permits before building a plant or launching a "major modification" of an existing facility that could spew more pollution.
But it's expected that a substitute will be offered, according to a staff memo. That substitute will be similar to a previously released discussion draft that is a hybrid of the two measures, the memo says.
Among other features, Griffith's draft would exempt projects intended to cut pollution or improve safety and reliability from the definition of a modification falling under the New Source Review umbrella.
More consequentially, it would also change EPA's yardstick for gauging whether a project would produce more pollution that would subject it to the pre-construction permitting requirements.
Currently, EPA looks at the potential impact of an expansion or other major modification on overall annual emissions. Griffith's bill would substitute a test tied to whether the project would cause the plant to emit pollution at a higher hourly rate.
At a May hearing, the draft measure got an ad hoc endorsement from EPA air chief Bill Wehrum, who has already overseen several policy changes to the program through guidance memos (E&E Daily, May 17). Wehrum, who represented an array of industry clients as a lawyer in private practice, viewed the proposed changes as an overdue streamlining, but critics say it will lead to more pollution.
Among the subcommittee members, the split fell along partisan lines. The subcommittee's chairman, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), said the draft bill would provide "much-needed regulatory clarity" for companies seeking to modernize their facilities, but ranking member Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said it would allow older coal-fired power plants — initially grandfathered from meeting modern pollution control requirements — "to continue polluting our air indefinitely."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089189
-
EPA Rejects Groups' Call For Strict Pulp Mill Rule, Opening Door To New Suit
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA has denied environmentalists' petition seeking to revise and strengthen its 2017 air toxics rule limiting emissions from the kraft pulp mills sector, opening the door to a new suit just as the advocates face an “uphill battle” to get a federal judge in California to require the agency to overhaul the rule.
The agency's decision, dated July 9 and announced in the Federal Register July 12, rejects on procedural grounds environmentalists' arguments that the rule ignores health risks and lacks adequate emissions limits for individual air toxics.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in the final response to the petition that Sierra Club and three other groups failed to raise their objections when they had the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed rule. “Because there was clearly an opportunity to comment on the absence of proposed standards for additional pollutants, the petitioners' objection amounts to an argument that they should have been given an opportunity to comment on the EPA's response to their comments,” Wheeler writes.
But the “reconsideration process is not meant to create an endless loop of comments and responses,” Wheeler says. “In sum, petitioners have not demonstrated that it was impracticable for them to comment on this issue during the comment period and accordingly have not met the first criterion for mandatory reconsideration.”
EPA's 2017 rule stems from a risk-and-technology review (RTR) rule, required under the Clean Air Act eight years after the agency issues a national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule for an industry sector. It found health risks from chemical recovery combustion sources at “kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills” to be acceptable, and did not strengthen numeric emissions limits for the sector.
In an RTR rule, EPA must determine if “residual” health risks remain, or whether new, cost-effective control technologies are available, and if so it can tighten the NESHAP. EPA has fallen years behind schedule conducting RTRs, and the agency issued the 2017 kraft mills rule under a court order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after environmentalists sued to force issuance of the rule, in Sierra Club, et al. v. McCarthy.
But environmentalists criticized the rule that EPA issued, charging it was too weak.
They petitioned EPA Dec. 11 to set emissions standards for all the HAPs emitted by the affected facilities, and to reexamine its legal and policy rationale for omitting limits for some HAPs. Environmentalists claim EPA changed its reasoning between the rule's proposal and its finalization, depriving them of the chance to comment. They further asked EPA to revise its health risk assessment to reflect the risk for the most exposed individuals, not those living at the “centroid” of a census block.
Petition Denial
But in his July 9 petition denial, Wheeler says environmentalists missed the opportunity to raise their concerns during the comment period on the proposed version of the rule.
Wheeler says the groups filed timely comments on the second point on which they seek reconsideration, namely that EPA wrongly estimated health risks to the public at the centroid of census blocks, rather than at the point of highest exposure to an industrial facility, near the facility's fenceline.
But he writes that “dissatisfaction with the outcome of the EPA's reasoned decisions does not provide sufficient basis for the EPA to reconsider the 2017 Rule.”
Wheeler's rejection of their petition comes as environmentalists in the Sierra Club suit continue to argue that the agency has failed to properly satisfy the court's mandate to “either revise the standards or issue a final determination that such revision is not necessary by October 1, 2017.”
Environmentalists in an April 10 motion asked the court to enforce its mandate and set a new schedule for EPA to issue a rule including limits for all HAPs emitted by kraft pulp mills, including mercury, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride, as well as dioxins, benzene, formaldehyde, and other organic chemicals.
EPA acknowledges that it has not yet regulated certain chemicals and processes used at these facilities, but has argued that the district court's short timetable for issuance of a new rule did not allow time for consideration of emissions limits for new chemicals. In a June 7 reply to environmentalists' motion to enforce, the agency argued that the 2017 rule can only be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- and indeed environmentalists have filed suit in the D.C. Circuit.
That case, Crossett Concerned Citizens, et al v. EPA, et al, has yet to enter the briefing stage, and EPA in procedural filings notes that any fresh lawsuit filed over its denial of environmentalists' petition for administrative reconsideration will likely be consolidated with Crossett.
Law 360 reported July 12 that at a hearing in the district court in Oakland the same day, environmentalists faced an “uphill battle” in their bid to force EPA action to amend the kraft mills rule. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam “repeatedly told an attorney” for environmentalists that the D.C. Circuit is already considering the “substance” of their challenge, the website reported.
Should environmentalists sue over the petition denial, their suit would likely be filed in the D.C. Circuit, and must be filed by Sept. 12.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-groups-call-strict-pulp-mill-rule-opening-door-new-suit
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested