Preview Newsletter

AM 7/24/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) On the Front Lines of a Trade War, U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Home in on Solutions
Jul 23, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ed Brzytwa

What’s it like to be caught in the crosshairs of a global trade war? It’s a question now frequently posed to U.S. chemical manufacturers, whose products – ranging from plastics to cosmetic ingredients – have become stratagems in the Trump administration’s effort to shake up the international trading system.
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Helps Propel Second-Quarter Business
Jul 23, 2018 | Politico
By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne Levine

Here are your Lobbying Disclosure Act revenue rankings for the second quarter of 2018:
(ACC Mentioned) Ex-Inhofe Aide Picked to Lead Policy Shop
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kevin Bogardus

EPA has a new policy chief...Brittany Bolen, who has been acting as the leader of EPA's policy office since April, will lead the shop on a permanent basis, the agency's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, said in an internal email obtained by E&E News.
Kavanaugh Sounds off on Mercury Standards, Regulations
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Amanda Reilly

The confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh is chugging along as the Supreme Court nominee late last week submitted a lengthy questionnaire to senators.

LCSA News

Environmentalists Charge EPA's Lead Dust Rule at Odds with TSCA
Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Environmentalists are signaling they are likely to sue over EPA's proposed rule strengthening its 2001 lead paint dust hazard standards that trigger abatement and protective measures in certain homes and facilities, arguing that the rule fails to adequately protect children's health...
House Bill Would Cut US EPA Budget by $100m
Jul 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US House of Representatives has passed an appropriations bill that, if approved, would cut the EPA's funding for 2019 by $100m.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pediatricians Group Urges Parents to Avoid These Chemicals
Jul 23, 2018 | CNN
By Maritza Moulite

A leading US medical organization representing more than 60,000 pediatricians recommends parents and children avoid certain chemicals used in food processing and called for the government to adjust its methods of deeming substances to be safe.
(ACC Mentioned) American Academy of Pediatrics Warns About Effect of Plastic, Chemicals on Children
Jul 23, 2018 | Wolf Tribune
By Emily MJ

An organization with over 60,000 pediatricians advises parents and children avoid a common chemical used in food processing and asks the government to update its regulatory efforts.
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco to Consider Outlawing Plastic Straws, Stirrers
Jul 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Janie Har

In a bid to further cut down on waste, eco-conscious San Francisco is expected to join Seattle in outlawing plastic straws used to suck down Mai Tais and slurp up bubble tea.
House Bill Decentralizing EPA Chemical Reviews Gets New Chance
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

Legislation that would distribute the EPA’s chemical assessment responsibilities among its offices, instead of leaving them to a single agency program, is getting another chance at a committee markup July 24.
Despite Jurisdiction Fight, House Science Panel Slates Chemical Bill Markup
Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

The House science committee is slated to mark up a revised draft version of its bill scaling back EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program July 24...
Savogran to Offer Paint Remover Line Without Two Spurned Solvents (1)
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The Savogran Co., a consumer goods manufacturer, is introducing a line of paint removers with what it says are less hazardous ingredients after major retailers announced that they won’t stock products containing two common solvents.
Notorious Cancer-Causing Solvent TCE Taints Tap Water for 14 Million Americans
Jul 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

Tap water supplies for more than 14 million Americans are contaminated with a cancer-causing industrial solvent made notorious by the book and film “A Civil Action,” according to an Environmental Working Group investigation released today.

Energy News

Colorado’s Leap into the Shale Boom Sparks a Ballot Box Threat
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Nussbaum and Catherine Traywick

For Colorado shale drillers, 2018’s been a record-setter for pumping oil and natural gas. It may also end up a banner year for the industry’s political foes.
Permian Operators Not ‘Backing Down,’ But Marcellus Activity ‘Softening,’ Says Halliburton CEO
Jul 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

The CEO of North America’s leading pressure pumper Halliburton Co. said Permian Basin operators do not seem overly concerned about potential oil and natural gas takeaway constraints as activity continues to be strong.

Chemical Security News

EPA Pushes Back Chemical Safety Rollback Amid Data Dispute
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson

Companies will have to wait a little longer for the EPA to finish work on a rollback of chemical facility safety rules after the agency failed to post data justifying the action.
EPA Extends Deadline for Input on RMP Revisions
Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending by several weeks its deadline for public input on the Trump administration's proposed rule scaling back the Obama-era update to the agency's facility accident prevention program to allow input on data EPA recently added to a public docket...

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Shuster Proposal Aims to 'Reignite' Reform Efforts
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) yesterday released a draft infrastructure bill in an effort to reinvigorate stalled momentum on the issue.
These New Jerseyans Want to Bring “Bomb Trains” to a Halt
Jul 24, 2018 | National Resources Defense Council
By Nicole Greenfield

On an early-summer morning five years ago, an unattended 74-car train carrying highly flammable crude oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota rolled down a hill and into the small town of Lac-Mégantic, Québec.

Environment News

Curbelo Eyes Climate Policy Talks with Carbon Tax Unveiling (1)
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

Even the main sponsor of the first Republican-introduced climate legislation in a decade admits the bill in the short term will likely be more of a conversation starter.
EPA Says Sierra Club Lacks Standing for Suit over SIP Air Monitoring Rule
Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

EPA says Sierra Club lacks standing to pursue its lawsuit challenging an agency rule detailing public notice requirements for states' air quality monitoring plans because the group cannot show any harm from the policy, and is also rejecting a push by environmentalists...
Residents Served by Pa. Environmental Justice Program Want More
Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

Businesses seeking to win environmental permits near poor and minority neighborhoods across a third of Pennsylvania would need to step up engagement in a plan being panned in the community that kicked off the state’s push for environmental equality.
Kids Blast Trump's Request for Trial Delay
Jul 23, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

A group of youth plaintiffs is urging the Supreme Court to allow an upcoming district court trial on the government's role in causing climate change to move forward.
'Road Map' Lays out Paths for Deep Carbon Cuts in Midwest
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich

There are multiple pathways to slash power-sector carbon emissions in the nation's midsection, with a couple of key factors, especially natural gas prices and policy, expected to dictate the cheapest route, according to a new study.
The Trump Administration Decides That the Air You’re Breathing Is Way Too Clean
Jul 23, 2018 | Washington Post
By Paul Waldman

Let it never be said that the Trump administration lacks ambition or creativity. Fresh off announcingits intention to gut the Endangered Species Act, it now wants to move aggressively to make the air Americans breathe not so annoyingly clean, no matter what it takes.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) On the Front Lines of a Trade War, U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Home in on Solutions

Jul 23, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Ed Brzytwa

What’s it like to be caught in the crosshairs of a global trade war?
It’s a question now frequently posed to U.S. chemical manufacturers, whose products – ranging from plastics to cosmetic ingredients – have become stratagems in the Trump administration’s effort to shake up the international trading system. That effort has produced a trade war.
U.S. tariffs on imports from China and retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners all target U.S.-made chemicals. 1,505 chemicals and plastics products, or 25 percent, of the $200 billion in Chinese imports the administration targeted recently for an additional 10 percent tariff are chemicals and plastics. The value of these imports from China was $16.4 billion in 2017.
Adding insult to injury, China is one of the U.S. chemical sector’s most important trading partners. China has threatened to retaliate against $5.4 billion in exports of U.S.-made chemicals and plastics. We fully expect to see additional retaliation against our industry as a result of the administration’s tariffs.
In addition to thousands of chemical products, nearly $90 billion in planned, steel-intensive, new chemical manufacturing facilities are also vulnerable to the administration’s tariffs and quotas on steel and aluminum. In fact, these tariffs are being implemented at the worst possible time for the U.S. chemicals industry.
In the early 2000s, the U.S. chemical sector was considered past its prime. The shale gas revolution changed all that, and now the industry is one of the most competitive, low-cost, and innovative producers of chemicals in the world. Over the past decade, U.S.-based and foreign chemical manufacturers have announced more than $194 billion in new investment in the U.S. to access its abundant and affordable supplies of U.S. natural gas, one of the building blocks of basic chemicals.
A typical world-scale ethylene cracker uses 18,500 tons of steel, so the increased price of steel from tariffs adds significant cost to these investments. As much as half of $194 billion in planned chemical industry investment could be vulnerable to delay or abandonment.
With the chemical industry caught in the crosshairs of a global trade war, what are we doing about it?
We are focused on telling our story. Focused on explaining why chemicals must be taken off the front lines of this trade war. Focused on finding ways to take advantage of the U.S. chemical sector’s unprecedented economic growth, export potential, and job creation. Focused on supporting recent legislative efforts designed to reinforce Congress’ constitutional authority over U.S. trade policy.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said earlier this month that he “hopes” the president’s endgame is “to rebalance, to get rid of tariffs, is to open up access to markets across the globe.” The President at the recent G7 meetings in Canada urged U.S. allies to eliminate their tariffs and non-tariff barriers. We support this shared vision for the elimination of trade barriers and increased access to global markets.
The U.S. economy alone cannot consume the increased chemical production resulting from the nearly $200 billion in U.S. chemical industry investment announced over the past decade. U.S. chemicals manufacturers will have to meet demand for chemicals in the rest of the world as well. We can help the U.S. grow its exports, create larger trade surpluses, and put more Americans to work.
We’re focused on setting the record straight. The U.S. unequivocally has benefited from rule-based international trading system. We built the World Trade Organization (WTO), its rules, and its dispute settlement system, and opened up new global markets. The U.S. chemicals industry was an early beneficiary when the U.S. and other major markets agreed to drop their tariff rates on chemicals to low levels.
Like any system that evolves over decades, it requires support and occasional reform. Most importantly, the WTO set the stage for the U.S. and its trading partners to address distortive practices, like the Chinese government’s policies on intellectual property.
ACC is committed to finding solutions. Therefore, we have identified several key opportunities to enact a better U.S. trade policy:
·       Build the coalition of U.S. trading partners to confront the Chinese government – together – on intellectual property practices and other trade distortive barriers to trade. The U.S. and its partners must be willing to leverage the WTO dispute settlement system to fully enforce the rules we helped create.
·       Aggressively pursue bilateral negotiations with key trading partners. The U.S. government should seek a quick and beneficial conclusion to the NAFTA negotiations, address key shortcomings in the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and pursue negotiations with other countries (like Brazil, India and Indonesia) where commercially meaningful market-opening commitments can be achieved. Forceful pursuit of bilateral negotiations by the Trump administration can help unleash powerful market forces that make supply chains more global and efficient, make goods and services more affordable for all countries, and supercharge innovation. Trade, investment, and global economic growth will then lift the poorest and most marginalized out of poverty and raise standards of living.
·       Identify the sectors where expansion, export potential, and American job growth are most likely, and seek market-opening agreements. For our part, chemical manufacturers believe a pro-manufacturing agenda should aim for zero tariffs between all major chemicals trading countries, as well as robust regulatory cooperation mechanisms that prevent non-tariff barriers to trade in chemicals.
·       Reinforce the value of the multilateral trade system. Letting the WTO and the multilateral trading system fall into disrepair or disappear is not in the economic or security interests of the United States. Such inattention would end globalization as we know it, decrease global economic growth and prosperity, and create unpredictable and harmful trade tensions across the world. That is a future that U.S. chemical manufacturers cannot support.
A tariff policy that threatens our allies, fails to address the root cause of trade-distortive practices, and props up uncompetitive industries, is not helpful. That is why the U.S. chemicals industry believes the U.S. must commit to finding a new path in trade policy.
Ed Brzytwa is the director of international trade at the American Chemistry Council and former negotiator with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/398389-on-the-front-lines-of-a-trade-war-us-chemical

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Helps Propel Second-Quarter Business

Jul 23, 2018 | Politico

By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne Levine

TOP FIRMS
1.      Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: $9 million (versus $10 million in Q1 2018 and $9.8 million in Q2 2017)
2.     Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck: $7.2 million (versus $7.2 million in Q1 2018 and $6.9 million in Q2 2017)
3.     BGR Group: $6.8 million (versus $6.9 million in Q1 2018 and $5.7 million in Q2 2017)
4.     Holland & Knight: $6.5 million (versus $6.1 million in Q1 2018 and $5.4 million in Q2 2018)
5.     Squire Patton Boggs: $6.3 million (versus $6.3 million in Q1 2018 and $6.3 million in Q2 2017)
6.     Van Scoyoc Associates: $5.9 million (versus $4 million in Q1 2018 and $4.9 million in Q2 2017)
7.     Cornerstone Government Affairs: $5.3 million (versus $6 million in Q1 2018 and $4.7 million in Q2 2017)
8.     K&L Gates: $4.8 million (versus $4.4 million in Q1 2018 and $4.6 million in Q2 2017)
9.     Covington & Burling: $4.7 million (versus $4.5 million in Q1 2018 and $4.8 million in Q2 2017)
10.Ballard Partners: $4.6 million (versus $4 million in Q1 2018 and $2.3 million in Q2 2017)
11. Williams & Jensen: $4.5 million (versus $4.4 million in Q1 2018 and $4.4 million in Q2 2017)
12. Capitol Counsel: $4.5 million (versus $4.4 million in Q1 2018 and $4.5 million in Q2 2017)
13. Hogan Lovells: $4 million (versus $2.8 million in Q1 2018 and $2.8 million in Q2 2017)
14. Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas: $3.9 million (versus $3.9 million in Q1 2018 and $3.8 million in Q2 2017)
15. Capitol Tax Partners: $3.7 million* (versus $4 million in Q1 2018 and $3.5 million in Q2 2017)
16. Cassidy & Associates: $3.7 million (versus $3.6 million in Q1 2018 and $3.5 million in Q2 2017)
17. Peck Madigan Jones: $3.5 million* (versus $3.5 million* in Q1 2018 and $3.6 million* in Q2 2017)
18. Fierce Government Relations: $3.3 million (versus $3.5 million in Q1 2018 and $3.3 million in Q2 2017)
19. Forbes Tate Partners: $3.2 million (versus $3.1 million in Q1 2018 and $2.5 million in Q2 2017)
20.                       Invariant: $3.2 million (versus $3 million in Q1 2018 and $2.6 million in Q2 2017)
*Estimated based on Senate disclosure filings. All other numbers have been verified with the firms.
TOP SPENDERS
1.      U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $15.2 million (versus $15.4 million in Q1 2018 and $11.7 million in Q2 2017)
2.     National Association of Realtors: $14.2 million (versus $13 million in Q1 2018 and $10.9 million in Q2 2017)
3.     Open Society Policy Center: $10.4 million (versus $2.5 million in Q1 2018 and $2.9 million in Q2 2017)
4.     Google: $5.8 million (versus $5 million in Q1 2018 and $5.9 million in Q2 2017)
5.     Business Roundtable: $5.8 million (versus $5.6 million in Q1 2018 and $3.2 million in Q2 2017)
6.     Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $5.5 million (versus $10 million in Q1 2018 and $6 million in Q2 2017)
7.     U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: $5.2 million (versus $7.5 million in Q1 2018 and $3.3 million in Q2 2017)
8.     AT&T: $4.6 million (versus $4.1 million in Q1 2018 and $4.2 million in Q2 2017)
9.     American Medical Association: $4.3 million (versus $6.6 million in Q1 2018 and $5.3 million in Q2 2017)
10.American Hospital Association: $4.3 million (versus $5 million in Q1 2018 and $3.8 million in Q2 2017)
11. Boeing: $3.9 million (versus $3.7 million in Q1 2018 and $4.8 million in Q2 2017)
12. Facebook: $3.7 million (versus $3.3 million in Q1 2018 and $2.4 million in Q2 2017)
13. American Chemistry Council: $3.6 million (versus $1.5 million in Q1 2018 and $1.6 million in Q2 2017)
14. National Association of Broadcasters: $3.6 million (versus $3.9 million in Q1 2018 and $3.5 million in Q2 2017)
15. Comcast: $3.5 million (versus $4.2 million in Q1 2018 and $3.8 million in Q2 2017)
16. Amazon: $3.5 million (versus $3.4 million in Q1 2018 and $3.2 million in Q2 2017)
17. Lockheed Martin: $3.3 million (versus $3.5 million in Q1 2018 and $3.9 million in Q2 2017)
18. NCTA — The Internet & Television Association: $3.3 million (versus $3.3 million in Q1 2018 and $3.1 million in Q2 2017)
19. Verizon: $3 million (versus $2.8 million in Q1 2018 and $2.6 million in Q2 2017)
20.                       General Dynamics: $2.9 million (versus $2.9 million in Q1 2018 and $2.8 million in Q2 2017)
BIGGEST CONTRACTS
1.      Hogan Lovells: ZTE ($1.3 million)
2.     Covington & Burling: Qualcomm ($1.1 million)
3.     Mercury: National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation ($1 million)
4.     Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Gila River Indian Community ($660,000)
5.     McGuiness, Yager & Bartl: HR Policy Association ($650,000)
6.     PricewaterhouseCoopers: Alliance for Competitive Taxation ($550,000)
7.     Roberti Global: Nord Stream 2 AG ($430,000)
8.     Venn Strategies: Employee-Owned S Corporations of America ($420,000)
9.     Dentons: Genting Americas ($390,000)
10.Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck: Athene Holding ($380,000)
OTHER NOTABLE LOBBYING FIRMS:
— American Continental Group: $2.9 million* (versus $3.2 million in Q1 2018 and $3.3 million* in Q2 2017)
— Crossroads Strategies: $3.2 million (versus $2.9 million in Q1 2018 and $2.9 million in Q2 2017)
— McGuireWoods Consulting: $2.3 million (versus $2.4 million in Q1 2018 and $2 million in Q2 2017)
— Monument Policy Group: $2 million (versus $1.9 million in Q1 2018 and $2.4 million** in Q2 2017)
— Venable: $2.5 million (versus $2.5 million in Q1 2018 and $2.2 million in Q2 2017)
— Washington Council Ernst & Young: $3.1 million* (versus $3 million* in Q1 2018 and $3.7 million* in Q2 2017)
** Includes a one-time $590,000 payment for lobbying work done over more than a year on behalf of victims of terrorism in Kenya and Tanzania (see this PI item for more details).
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips, tips, tips, tips, tips, tips, tips: mlevine@politico.com and tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow us on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer and @marianne_levine.
WHAT THE NUMBERS MEAN: Companies scrambling to win relief from President Donald Trump’s tariffs helped drive another solid three months of business for Washington’s top lobbying firms in the second quarter, according to a PI analysis of disclosure filings. Some firms saw bumps in business: Holland & Knight’s revenue rose to $6.5 million in the quarter, up from $6.1 million in the first quarter, making it the No. 4 firm in town by revenue. Van Scoyoc Associates, Ballard Partners and Hogan Lovells also saw their revenue rise. Other firms saw their revenue dip: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld saw its revenue slip to $9 million from $10 million in the first quarter, although it remained the top firm in town. “We’re pleased that our results have stayed largely consistent year over year,” said Hunter Bates, a co-leader of Akin Gump’s public law and policy practice, in a statement. “Much of our work is done on a project-by-project basis, so as some projects wind down and others ramp up there will be some slight shifts in our quarterly numbers — but our overall trend has been consistency.”
— Hogan Lovells saw its lobbying revenue surge to $4 million because of a single mammoth contract with ZTE, the Chinese telecommunications company. The Commerce Department in April banned ZTE from importing American goods after ZTE violated a settlement with the U.S. government that was reached last year in retaliation for ZTE’s violation of U.S. sanctions on Iran and North Korea. ZTE hired a squadron of Hogan Lovells lobbyists, including former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), two days later, according to disclosure filings. ZTE paid Hogan Lovells nearly $1.3 million for 2 1/2 months of work. The effort appears to have worked: The Commerce Department said in June that it would lift the ban in exchange for ZTE paying a $1 billion fine and other concessions.
— Other firms are benefiting from the uptick in trade lobbying, too. Dave Schnittger, a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs, wrote in an email to PI that “businesses across the country and throughout the world are scrambling to protect their supply chains and preserve jobs, and as they take these steps, they’re recognizing that direct engagement with Washington is essential to accomplishing their goals.” The firm has filed nearly 2,000 tariffs exclusion requests with the Commerce Department on behalf of clients, according to Schnittger.
— But tariff lobbying is only part of what’s driving business on K Street. Elizabeth Gore, the chairwoman of the government relations department at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, the No. 2 firm by firm, said that lobbying on the regulations the Treasury Department is crafting to implement the Republican tax bill is keeping the firm’s lobbyists busy. So are health care and a variety of bills making their way through Congress, including the farm bill and the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. “Congress is actually doing a fair amount of legislating right now,” Gore said, even if the bills it’s moving don’t generate banner headlines. “All of these pieces of legislation generate activity,” she added.
TRUMP CALLS WASHINGTON POST A LOBBYIST FOR AMAZON (AGAIN): Trump returned to a familiar attack on The Washington Post this morning, calling the paper a “lobbyist for Amazon” on Twitter. He made the same charge on Twitter in March and again in April. Needless to say, it’s not true. Kristine Coratti, a Post spokeswoman, wrote in an email to PI after the March tweet that “absolutely no one at The Post is paid by Amazon or does work of any type on behalf of the company.”
FIRST IN PI — MERCURY ADDS ARNAVAT: Gustavo Arnavat, whom former President Barack Obama appointed to the board of the Inter-American Development Bank, has joined Mercury as a co-chairman of the firm. He’ll be based in New York. He’s also a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
TODAY’S NOTABLE REGISTRATIONS: In today’s notable registration news, former Rep. William Archer (R-Texas) registered to lobby on behalf of HSA Council, a nonprofit, to promote health savings accounts. In trade lobbying news, Snow Joe, an outdoor products company, hired Covington & Burling to lobby on Section 301 tariffs, and Vertex Railcar, a freight railcar manufacturer, hiredTroutman Sanders to lobby on the China tariffs.
FP1 TEAMS UP WITH PUBLIC FIRST: The Washington public affairs firm FP1 Strategies is partnering with the British firm Public First "to help organizations on both sides of the Atlantic advocate for a bilateral trade agreement and better understand what it might mean for them," according to FP1. A YouGovpoll commissioned by the firms found that 67 percent of U.S. voters and 64 percent of British voters approved of such a trade deal.
JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK SPENDS ANOTHER $1.5 MILLION ON SCOTUS: The conservative Judicial Crisis Network is out with another $1.5 million ad buy today targeting Senate Democrats in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana and Alabama. The ads tell voters to urge their respective senators to vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, Judicial Crisis Network has spent more than $5 million on ads. In a written statement, Carrie Severino, the group’s chief counsel and policy director, said that “red state Democrats have a choice: stand with their constituents and support President Trump's extraordinarily qualified Supreme Court nominee, or stand with Chuck Schumerand be a rubber stamp for the extreme liberal special interests."
SPEAKING OF KAVANAUGH: HuffPost’s Michael Hobbes takes a look at the public relations firm working to push Kavanaugh’s nomination through: CRC Public Relations. “CRC Public Relations is a staple of the conservative public affairs ecosystem,” Hobbes writes. “The firm, originally called Creative Response Concepts, was founded in 1989 but first achieved prominence in 2004, when it coordinated the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, a nationwide PR and advertising campaign to cast doubt on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s war record.”
— “CRC’s work to help confirm Kavanaugh appears to go beyond pitch emails. …. The Judicial Crisis Network paid CRC $1.4 million for public relations from July 2015 through June 2016. The ‘about’ page of the Judicial Crisis Network’s website directs queries to CRC.” Full story.
BALLARD BUNDLES NEARLY $100,000 FOR SCOTT: “Gov. Rick Scott,who is running as a political outsider, got an early boost for his U.S. Senate campaign from a familiar source: Brian Ballard,” POLITICO’s Matt Dixon reports. “Ballard, who is president of lobbying firm Ballard Partners, bundled $97,200 in contributions for Scott between April and June, according to lobbyist bundling reports filed with the Federal Election Commission and made public on Monday. Scott, a two-term governor, is running his campaign as a political outsider, but Ballard is anything but."
— “Contributions are bundled when one person goes to several donors to collect checks and delivers them at once to a candidate or campaign. The names of individual donors are not listed on the FEC filing, which must be made when the bundling is done by a federally registered lobbyist. Ballard has long been a top ally of Scott and helped raise money for his 2014 gubernatorial bid. During a June fundraising swing through Washington, D.C., Ballard hosted a fundraiser for Scott’s campaign.” Full story.
JOBS REPORT:
— Allyson Azar is manager of state government relations and public policy for the West for the Household & Commercial Products Association. She was previously manager of state affairs and political mobilization at the American Chemistry Council.
— Stephen Caldeira, president and chief executive of the Household & Commercial Products Association, was named chairman of the board of directors for the Alzheimer’s Association national capital area chapter.
— Kyle Matous is now assistant director of government relations at the ONE Campaign. He most recently was chief of staff for Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).
— Sydney Simon is now media and communications specialist at the German Marshall Fund. She most recently was senior communications manager at The Atlantic.
ON THE CALENDAR
— The National Association of Manufacturers’ Jay Timmons starts a listening tour today at Shield’s Pizza in Detroit.
— Christians United for Israel begins its annual summit today. The summit will go through Tuesday. Speakers at the summit include American Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley; Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton(R-Ark.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.); Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.); and Paul Teller, special assistant to the president for legislative affairs.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS:
New York Red To Blue Fund (Max Rose for Congress, Delgado for Congress, Brindisi for Congress)
NEW PACs:
Black National Caucas (PAC)
California Remnant Nation (PAC)
Generation Go (PAC)
Model Citizens Vote Inc. (Super PAC)
Ohioans For A Healthy Economy Action Fund (Super PAC)
Restoring Are Democracy (RAD) (PAC)
Revolutionary Action (PAC)
NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS:
Acadian Advantage, LLC: Bob Riley and Associates on behalf of HPC Specialty Pharmacy
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Fletcher Group, Inc.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Sepsis Stakeholder Coalition
Altrius Group, LLC: Firman Power Equipment
American Continental Group: Coaltion for Horse Racing Integrity
American Continental Group: Pembina Pipeline Corporation
American Defense International, Inc.: Persistent Systems, LLC
Bailey Strategic Advisors, LLC: Ryan, LLC
Banner Public Affairs, LLC: Next Animation Services
BGR Government Affairs: Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
BGR Government Affairs: Embassy of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the United States
BGR Government Affairs: Ministry of Finance, Federal Republic of Somalia
BGR Government Affairs: National Lifeline Association
BGR Government Affairs: Quadrant Holdings
Blue Marble Strategy LLC: Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Connecture Inc.
Butera, Israel & BeckerPLLC: Emigrant Bancorp Inc.
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: International Bancshares Corporation
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Marquette National Corporation
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Midland Financial Company
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Rent-A-Center, Inc.
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Starwood Capital Group
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Taco Bell Franchise Management Advisory Council
Butera, Israel & Becker PLLC: Texas Bankers Association
Capitol Hill Consulting Group: American Chiropractic Association, Inc.
Clark Hill, PLC: ACA International
Clark Hill, PLC: Ghaffarian Enterprises
Cooper River Consulting: Charleston County
Covington & Burling LLP: Snow Joe LLC
CTF Global LLC (formerly filing as The Grossman Group, LLC): First Cobalt Corp.
DeBrunner & Associates, Inc.: Upper Allegheny Health System
DiNino Associates, LLC: Cornerstone Government Affairs obo American Gaming Association
DiNino Associates, LLC: Cornerstone Government Affairs obo Nutanix, Inc.
DiNino Associates, LLC: Cornerstone Government Affairs obo Providence St. Joseph Health
DiNino Associates, LLC: Cornerstone Government Affairs obo The Coalition for Investor Choice
Envision Strategy: The Metropolitan District
Envision Strategy: Thrivee, Inc
George J. Hochbrueckner & Associates, Inc.: Electronic Transactions Systems
Groom Law Group, Chartered: ESOP Trustee Coalition
Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC: Protea Aero Drive, LLC ("Protea")
Keller Partners & Company: Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP: Quandrant Holdings
Mabry Public Affairs LLC: Andeavor
Mabry Public Affairs LLC: Phillips 66
McAllister & Quinn, LLC: Enviro Ambient
Milne, Wiener & Shofe Global Strategies (FKA M & W Government Affairs, LLC): JTEK Data Solutions Inc
Missy Edwards Strategies, LLC: World Dog Alliance
Mr. David Kilian: Innovative Federal Strategies on behalf of its clients
Navigators Global LLC (Formerly DC Navigators, LLC): Daikin U.S. Corporation
Off Hill Strategies L.L.C.: Liberty HealthShare
Perkins Coie LLP: Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining & Marketing, LLC
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP: JSJ Investors LLC
Slipstream Strategies: Alliance for Drone Safety and Security Solutions
The Conafay Group, LLC: Neural Analytics
The OB-C Group. LLC: MAERSK Inc
Todd Strategy, LLC: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Todd Strategy, LLC: EMD Serono Inc.
Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, LLC: Vertex Railcar Corporation
Venable LLP: National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy
WayPoint Consulting, LLC: Delta Capital Research LLC
William Archer: HSA Council
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP: Mountain Capital Partners
NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS:
Acadian Advantage, LLC: Bob Riley and Associates on behalf of Alabama Affordable Housing Association
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Association to Invest in the USA (IIUSA)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: City of Rochester, NY
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Corning Incorporated
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: TerreStar Corporation
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: University of Houston
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: WageWorks
Alston & Bird LLP: Agfa Corporation
Alston & Bird LLP: American Orthotic & Prosthetic Association
Alston & Bird LLP: Genentech Inc
American Continental Group: The Jockey Club
American Defense International, Inc.: Dewey Square Group
Arent Fox LLP: OFO US Limited
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP: Coalition for Restoration and Regulatory Reform Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP: Warby Parker
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP: Alliance for Capital Access
Beveridge & Diamond PC: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Beveridge & Diamond PC: American Chemistry Council
Beveridge & Diamond PC: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
BGR Government Affairs: Andrey Borodin
BGR Government Affairs: Nixon Peabody (on behalf of the Rhode Island Housing Authority) BGR Government Affairs: Gilead Sciences, Inc.
BGR Government Affairs: Brundage-Bone Concrete Pumping
BGR Government Affairs: Paul Ostling
Bracewell LLP: American Wind Energy Association
Brimley Group Inc.: Center for Union Facts
Capitol City Group, Ltd.: MIKEL Inc.
Capitol Counsel LLC: Gephardt Government Affairs on behalf of Bayer AG
Capitol Counsel LLC: The MENTOR Network
Capitol Hill Consulting Group: Blackwater Diving, LLC
Capitol Hill Consulting Group: Assette
Capitol Hill Consulting Group: Strategic Power Systems
Capitol Hill Consulting Group: Offshore Marine Service Association
Capitol Strategies, LLC: Maricopa Association of Governments
CGCN Group, LLC (formerly known as Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC): SupplyCore Inc.
CGCN Group, LLC (formerly known as Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC): Loews Corporation
CGCN Group, LLC (formerly known as Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC): National Conference of Insurance Legislators
CGCN Group, LLC (formerly known as Clark Geduldig Cranford & Nielsen, LLC): Whirlpool Corporation Chamber Hill Strategies: America's Voice
Clark Hill, PLC: Nexteer Automotive
Clean Line Energy Partners LLC: Clean Line Energy Partners LLC
Coffee Group: The Doe Run Resources Corporation
Covington & Burling LLP: Gordon Sondland
Covington & Burling LLP: SPI Group Sarl
Covington & Burling LLP: Freeport-McMoRan
Covington & Burling LLP: National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities Crossroads Strategies, LLC: Ameresco, Inc.
CSRA Inc.: CSRA Inc.
Cypress Advocacy, LLC: SunPower Corporation
Cypress Advocacy, LLC: Third Point Reinsurance
Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Daiichi Sankyo Inc
Delta Strategy Group: Managed Funds Association
Dentons US LLP: Mobilex USA
Directors Guild of America, Inc.: Directors Guild of America, Inc.
DLA Piper LLP (US): National Business Coalition on E-Commerce and Privacy DLA Piper LLP (US): Cohu, Inc.
DLA Piper LLP (US): Hannover Re Group
DLA Piper LLP (US): International Underwriting Association of London
Dykema Gossett Pllc: Equifax
Dykema Gossett Pllc: One Nation Health
Dykema Gossett Pllc: Smart Growth America
Envision Strategy: Harvester Trust
Envision Strategy: The Achievable Foundation
Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting: Growth Energy
Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting: Kempe Foundation
FBB Federal Relations: Pioneer Group (on behalf of Jordan Cove LNG, LLC) Federal Policy Group, LLC: Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc (Previously Reported As Anheuser-Busch Company)
Federal Policy Group, LLC: Truck Renting and Leasing Association
Franklin Square Group, LLC: Cisco Systems Inc
Franklin Square Group, LLC: Contrast Security, Inc.
FTI Government Affairs: ACE Cash Express
George J. Hochbrueckner & Associates, Inc.: BLJ Worldwide
George J. Hochbrueckner & Associates, Inc.: STS Global, Inc.
Gephardt Group Government Affairs: Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc (Previously Reported As Anheuser-Busch)
Gephardt Group Government Affairs: Waste Management
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP: BlueMountain Capital Management, LLC
Goldhaber Policy Services LLC: Shellpoint Partners LLC
Greenberg Traurig, LLP: American Trucking Associations
Health Policy Source, Inc.: SSM Health Care - Dean Clinic
Holland & Knight LLP: United Airlines Inc
Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC: BioSentinel, Inc
Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC: Enterprise Services, LLC
Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC: Rejjee Inc.
Insight Public Affairs, Inc.: American Immigration Council
Invariant LLC: Bot Home Automation, Inc.
Invariant LLC: Growth Energy
Invariant LLC: Health Care Alliance for Patient Safety
Invariant LLC: CiBO Technologies
J M Burkman & Associates: Triumph Energy
J M Burkman & Associates: Ubiota
J.C. Watts Companies: Insured Retirement Institute (Formerly Known As Investment Retirement Institute
JTK Consulting, LLC: Capitol Strategies, LLC (on behalf of Maricopa Association of Governments)
Keller Partners & Company: Advanced Mobile Hospital Systems
Keller Partners & Company: Ohio Christian University
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP: Automotive Recyclers Association
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP: Chamber Of Marine Commerce (F/K/A Canadian Shipowners Association)
Key Impact Strategies: NVG, LLC (on behalf of The Reinvestment Fund)
King & Spalding LLP: HeartFlow
King & Spalding LLP: Omeros Corporation
Krooth & Altman LLP: Committee on Healthcare Financing
Lavender Consultants: Jones Walker, LLP on behalf of Mid-Size Bank Coalition of America
Liberty Partners Group, LLC: H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center And Research Institute
Lincoln Policy Group: United Surgical Partners International
Lobbyit.com: American Association of Family Caregivers
Lobbyit.com: Committee For Efficient Government, LLC
Locke Lord Public Policy Group LLC: Kansai Paint Co., Ltd.
Loews Public Affairs Services, Inc. (Formerly MLBA Services, Inc): Loews Corporation
Lungren Lopina LLC: Carthage Area Hospital
Lungren Lopina LLC: Resilient Corporation
Madison Associates, LLC: Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities
Management & Government Resources: Mobiverse
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Altria Client Services
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Athene USA Corporation
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): CHS, Inc.
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Clean Affordable Reliable Electricity Coalition (CARE Coalition)
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Hewlett Packard Enterprise
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): National Alliance Of Forest Owners
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Policy and Taxation Group
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Schneider National Inc.
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA)
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): St Thomas - St John Chamber Of Commerce
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Tiaa
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Wolters Kluwer
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): American Academy of Adoption Attorneys
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Hixme
McGuireWoods Consulting (A Subsidiary of McGuireWoods LLP): Physician Hospitals of America (PHA)
Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, Inc.: DXC Technology Company And Affiliates
Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, Inc.: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (on behalf of JinkoSolar U.S.)
Mercury: Emergent BioSolutions
Mercury: Linchpin Strategies on behalf of Food Services International of Gainesville
Mercury: New Jersey Natural Gas
Miller Strategies, LLC: CB&I Project Services Group, LLC
Ml Strategies, LLC: Link-In Benefits
Ml Strategies, LLC: Peak Resorts, Inc.
Monument Policy Group, LLC: CA, Inc.
Monument Policy Group, LLC: Drax Group plc
Monument Policy Group, LLC: Erickson Companies
Mrs. Nelda Luce Blair: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, L. L. P.
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough: The Nardelli Group on behalf of Alexium, Inc.
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough: Natera, Inc.
Newman's Own Foundation: Newman's Own Foundation
Nossaman LLP (Formerly Nossaman LLP/O'Connor & Hannan): Alaska Aerospace Corporation
Nossaman LLP (Formerly Nossaman LLP/O'Connor & Hannan): Freezer Longline Coalition
Nossaman LLP (Formerly Nossaman LLP/O'Connor & Hannan): Halibut Coalition
Nossaman LLP (Formerly Nossaman LLP/O'Connor & Hannan): John Nystrom
NT Lakis, LLP: The Federal Group, Inc. on behalf of The Home Care Assn. of America
Ogilvy Government Relations: Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
PACE, LLP (Formerly PACE-CAPSTONE): Intermap Technologies
Park Strategies, LLC: Alaska Structures
Park Strategies, LLC: Atlantic Strategies Group
Park Strategies, LLC: LaserMax, Inc.
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein LLP: Fuentek, LLC
Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein LLP: Native Angels Home Care Agency Inc
Petra Strategies LLC: Cypress Advocacy, LLC on behalf of COFINA Seniors Coalition (informal coalition)
Raffaniello & Associates: National Automobile Dealers Association
Sextons Creek: Nevro Corporation
Sextons Creek: Palantir
SGR LLC Government Relations and Lobbying: Grup Immobiliari Cierco
Skladany Consulting LLC: Akin Gump On Behalf Of Coalition For Twenty First Century Patent Reform
Skladany Consulting LLC: Akin Gump on behalf of Gila River Telecommunications, Inc.
Skladany Consulting LLC: Akin Gump on behalf of Puerto Rico Statehood Council
Skladany Consulting LLC: Cleveland HeartLab Inc.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP: KLX Inc.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP: TD Bank Financial Group
Stokes Strategies: CR England
Stokes Strategies: New Roads Treatment Centers
Strategic Health Care: East Jefferson General Hospital
TCK International, LLC: Dla Piper LLP US (For Aarp)
Team Hallahan LLC: Town of Leesburg, Virginia
The Cormac Group, LLC: Brentwood Village Stakeholders
The Glover Park Group LLC: Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors (On Behalf of 3M)
The Glover Park Group LLC: Johns Hopkins University
The Hamm Consulting Group, LLC: Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College
The McKeon Group, Inc.: Association of Catastrophe Adjusters
The McKeon Group, Inc.: The Glover Park Group
The Nickles Group, LLC: Genworth Financial, Inc.
The Picard Group, LLC: City of Scott
The Summerill Law Firm: Wakulla County Sheriff's Office
The Washington Tax & Public Policy Group (formerly The Washington Tax Group): Baxter Healthcare Corporation
The Washington Tax & Public Policy Group (formerly The Washington Tax Group): Celgene Corporation
The Washington Tax & Public Policy Group (formerly The Washington Tax Group): HSBC GR-Corp
Third Street Strategies, LLC.: Recovery Audit Specialists, LLC
Tonio Burgos & Associates of New Jersey LLC: Hugo Neu Corporation
TransAtlantic Services, LLC: O3b Networks USA LLC
Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group, LLC: University Of North Georgia Foundation Inc
Van Scoyoc Associates: City Of Norwalk California
Van Scoyoc Associates: City of Visalia, CA
Van Scoyoc Associates: FlexEnergy, Inc.
Van Scoyoc Associates: Mission Springs Water District
Venable LLP: Employee-Owned S Corporations of America (ESCA)
Venable LLP: Hartz Capital, Inc.
Venable LLP: Lloyd's America, Inc.
Venable LLP: SecureView
Venable LLP: United States Tennis Association Incorporated
Washington Diplomacy Group, LLC (Formerly Known As: Washington Strategy Group LLC): Alliance for Shared Values
Washington Diplomacy Group, LLC (Formerly Known As: Washington Strategy Group LLC): Bay Area Cultural Connections
Washington Diplomacy Group, LLC (Formerly Known As: Washington Strategy Group LLC): Raindrop Turkish House
Washington Diplomacy Group, LLC (Formerly Known As: Washington Strategy Group LLC): Scioto Educational Foundation
Wiley Rein LLP: Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
Williams and Jensen, PLLC: City of Westminster
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP: Core Mountain Enterprises, LLC
Winning Strategies Washington: The S.M. Group

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2018/07/23/trade-helps-propel-second-quarter-business-294338

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Ex-Inhofe Aide Picked to Lead Policy Shop

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Kevin Bogardus

EPA has a new policy chief.
Brittany Bolen, who has been acting as the leader of EPA's policy office since April, will lead the shop on a permanent basis, the agency's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, said in an internal email obtained by E&E News.
Bolen joined EPA last year as the Office of Policy's political deputy. She was previously policy counsel for the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and before that, majority counsel on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under then-Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Several other former Inhofe aides have taken on prominent positions at EPA under the Trump administration, including Jackson, the senator's former chief of staff, and acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who was EPW staff director under Inhofe.
Samantha Dravis, the prior EPA policy chief, stepped down from the agency in April. She was considered a close aide to Administrator Scott Pruitt, who resigned earlier this month after being overwhelmed with allegations of excessive spending and mismanagement.
"During her time at EPA, Brittany has played a critical role in leading OP, particularly as the office went through a major reorganization this last spring. Additionally, Brittany serves on EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force and has testified before Congress on the agency's regulatory reform efforts," Jackson told EPA employees yesterday evening in his email.
"Please join me in congratulating Brittany on her selection for this role."
Brian Mannix, who led EPA's policy shop during the George W. Bush administration, noted that Bolen has been working in the key agency office for more than a year.
"The policy chief has to engage with all of the staff as well as the program offices to give the administrator the full range of options," said Mannix, now a research professor at George Washington University.
"My impression is that Brittany has been engaging with the staff and is fully prepared to step in the [assistant administrator] role."
Bolen earned her law degree from the George Mason University School of Law and a bachelor's degree from the University of Florida.
Bryan Zumwalt, then chief counsel at EPW, brought Bolen onto the committee staff in 2013. He called her "one of the best hires" he made at the panel.
"She is very capable, very talented, and EPA is fortunate to have her in that position," said Zumwalt, now vice president of federal affairs at the American Chemistry Council.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/24/stories/1060090145

Return to headline | Return to top
Kavanaugh Sounds off on Mercury Standards, Regulations

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Amanda Reilly

The confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh is chugging along as the Supreme Court nominee late last week submitted a lengthy questionnaire to senators.
The 110-page document includes information on Kavanaugh's history with the George W. Bush administration and his years as a prominent conservative judge on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Kavanaugh also submitted several appendices' worth of prior speeches, academic writings, news articles, testimony and legal filings.
Earlier this month, President Trump tapped Kavanaugh to fill the seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The questionnaire is a key step on the way toward the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a hearing.
Republicans are hoping to confirm Kavanaugh by the beginning of the Supreme Court's October term, but many Democrats have already staked out opposition to the nominee.
Here are some things we learned:Most significant opinions
Kavanaugh views his 2014 dissent calling out EPA for failing to consider the costs of landmark mercury regulations for power plants as one of his top 10 most significant opinions on the D.C. Circuit.
He wrote, "In my view, it was unreasonable — and therefore unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act — for EPA not to consider the costs imposed by regulations in determining whether such regulations were 'appropriate and necessary.'"
The case was among nine times Kavanaugh identified the Supreme Court adopting his reasoning: In 2015, justices "agreed with my position that the statute requires consideration of costs."Lone Supreme Court reversal
Kavanaugh identified 307 opinions, including concurrences and dissents, he authored on the D.C. Circuit. Of that total, according to the nominee, "only one opinion has been reversed in part by the Supreme Court."
The case: a challenge to an Obama-era rule for regulating air emissions that cross state lines. In 2012, Kavanaugh penned the majority D.C. Circuit opinion finding that EPA had exceeded its authority with the rule; the Supreme Court in part overturned the ruling in a 6-2 decision.
Kavanaugh, though, noted that the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissent "agreeing fully with my majority opinion."Administrative state
Kavanaugh is concerned with the state of the administrative state and has devoted many speeches and articles over the years to his views on separation of powers and the executive branch.
On several occasions, he's raised concerns with agency deference doctrines, including the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to reasonable agency actions when Congress has been silent or ambiguous on a topic. But unlike some Supreme Court justices, Kavanaugh has not called for the doctrine's full repeal.Recusals
Kavanaugh revealed he has recused himself from many cases during his 12 years on the D.C. Circuit.
For some cases, including massive litigation over an Interior Department land buy-back program for tribes, Kavanaugh recused himself because they involved issues or individuals from his time working for the Bush administration.
In other cases, such as litigation over the Purple Line rail project in the greater D.C. area, Kavanaugh said he had a relationship or contact with an attorney or party involved.
But he also recused himself from several cases on his own motion, without giving any reasons. They include: litigation over an earlier iteration of the interstate pollution rule, a 2006 lawsuit filed by New York seeking to force EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and several transmission cases against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.Selection process
Confirming he was considered a front-runner early on, Kavanaugh said the White House first reached out to him about the Supreme Court vacancy on June 27 — the day Kennedy announced his retirement from the bench.
White House counsel Don McGahn called the prospective nominee in the late afternoon that day, and the two met in person on June 29. Kavanaugh then met with Trump on July 2 and Vice President Mike Pence on July 4.
The D.C. Circuit judge accepted the nomination at a meeting in the evening of Sunday, July 8, with Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump. The president announced Kavanaugh's nomination in the White House East Room the following day.Kavanaugh's paper trail
Along with the 110-page questionnaire, Kavanaugh submitted 6,048 pages' worth of appendices. The lengthy questionnaire bears out concerns expressed by Democrats and some Republicans about the sizable paper trail following Kavanaugh, not only because of his dozen years on the D.C. Circuit but also his work for the Bush administration and as a lawyer assisting independent counsel Ken Starr in his investigation of President Clinton.
Democrats have insisted that the White House make available all relevant documents from Kavanaugh's career, but Republicans have accused Democrats of using documents as a way to slow down the nomination.
"It is likely that even under a conservative estimate," Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said last week, "that we're going to end up with three, four or five times the number of pages than we've ever had for any nominee before this committee."

https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/24/stories/1060090119

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Environmentalists Charge EPA's Lead Dust Rule at Odds with TSCA

Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Environmentalists are signaling they are likely to sue over EPA's proposed rule strengthening its 2001 lead paint dust hazard standards that trigger abatement and protective measures in certain homes and facilities, arguing that the rule fails to adequately protect children's health as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In a July 17 blog post, Tom Neltner, of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), charges that EPA's July 2 proposed rule fails to set standards based on current science and fails to update numerous other aspects of the rule to ensure children are adequately protected from lead-based paint hazards as TSCA -- and a federal appellate court -- allegedly require.
“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that EPA had an obligation to update its rules when necessary to further Congress’s intent to prevent childhood lead poisoning and eliminate lead-based paint hazards,” Neltner says, adding that EPA's proposed rule acknowledges recent science shows greater risk from lead than anticipated.
“While the tighter dust-lead hazard standards are welcome, they create unnecessary confusion and fall far short of what the law and the science demands,” he adds.
Neltner argues that EPA's proposed standards fail to consistently apply the new standards to all situations regulated under the rule, fail to address risks from exposures to lead through soil, and are based on an outdated Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) blood lead level, rather than CDC's updated metric issued after advocates' petitioned for tighter standards.
“Despite CDC reducing what it considers as an elevated blood lead level from 10 to 5 [micrograms per micrograms per deciLiter (µg/dL)], EPA never assessed whether more protective dust-lead standards than those requested in 2009 were appropriate,” he says.
Neltner also faults EPA for basing the rule's economic analysis on the 2012 level it declined to use in setting standards, and notes that the agency has relied on the updated CDC level in other analysis of risks from lead.
“The inconsistency makes little sense if the agency is serious in fulfilling its responsibilities under [TSCA] to establish protective standards,” he says.
EPA is currently seeking comment through Aug. 16 on the proposed rule issued in response to an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that ruled that EPA had unreasonably delayed updating its lead dust hazard standards after accepting environmental groups' 2009 petition seeking stronger protections.
In the proposed rule, EPA says it plans to strengthen its dust-lead hazard standards from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot (ug/ft2) and 250 µg/ft2 for floors and window sills, respectively, to 10 µg/ft2 and 100 µg/ft2. The proposal updates a 2001 rule that the agency had not revised, despite new science showing significantly greater risks from lead.
The lead dust hazard standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten facilities. Before 1978, lead-based paint was commonly used, and lead dust can result when the old paint is disturbed during renovation and repair.
EPA's standard is used to determine when renovators and contractors in residential buildings must conduct abatement and take protective steps to limit exposures to children, workers and others, while the definition helps inspectors and risk assessors determine where lead-based paint is located in housing and informs risk reduction efforts.
Data Gaps
In the rule, EPA declines advocates' 2009 calls to amend its definition of lead-based paint, citing “significant data gaps.” The definition supports an array of efforts to reduce risks from lead exposure, including helping risk assessors determine where lead-based paint hazards are present and so where mitigation efforts may be warranted.
While the proposed rule tightens the standards as advocates' requested, Neltner argues that EPA should have proposed stronger limits and taken other steps given changes since the 2009 petition, including improved scientific understanding of neurodevelopmental and other risks of lead, including from exposures through soil.
Additionally, he argues that EPA undermines its own proposed rule by not consistently applying the new tightened standards in all three contexts governed by the current standards.
Neltner says that while current limits for floors and windowsills are used in the lead-based paint hazard standards, and for determining whether a hazard is present in a risk assessment, and for ensuring that lead hazards are successfully cleared in abatement efforts, the proposed limits would not apply to future clearance efforts.
“It does not make sense to have a clearance level that is less protective than the associated hazard standard, but EPA has expressly created that situation,” Neltner says, noting that advocates' 2009 petition requested that EPA revise the limit in all three situations covered by the rule.
“The consequences of this decision would allow the bizarre situation where a risk assessment could find a dust-lead hazard on the floor such as 30 µg/ft2 (above the proposed standard but below the current level), but allow an abatement contractor to come in, do nothing, and pass clearance because the levels would fall below the current limit of 40 µg/ft2.”
He also argues that EPA apparently failed to consider other data, including a 2007 American Healthy Housing Survey, which Neltner says could have informed a decision to tighten the definition of lead in paint.
And he faults EPA for not considering a March 2018 study in the journal, The Lancet, that showed significantly greater risk of premature death due to cardiovascular disease associated with low level exposure to lead by adults.
Additionally, Neltner says EPA failed to updated the 2001 rule's outdated limit for lead in soil.
“EPA does not consider tightening the lead-soil hazard standards even though it acknowledges that '[i]ngestion of lead-contaminated soil and dust is a major contributor to [blood lead levels] in children' and '[l]ead-contaminated dust and soil are the major pathways through which most young children are exposed to lead from lead-based paint
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-charge-epas-lead-dust-rule-odds-tsca

Return to headline | Return to top
House Bill Would Cut US EPA Budget by $100m

Jul 24, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US House of Representatives has passed an appropriations bill that, if approved, would cut the EPA's funding for 2019 by $100m.
The bill – which passed 217-199, largely along party lines – would set agency funding at $7.96bn. This is $100m lower than the current fiscal year budget. However, it is well above the multi-billion dollar cut proposed by President Trump when he floated a $6.15bn FY2019 budget in February.
The legislation keeps "toxics risk review and prevention" at the existing level of $92.5m.
And it would set aside $113.9m for "chemical safety and sustainability research". This includes maintaining existing funding for the computational toxicology and endocrine disruptor programmes.
A draft report to the bill reaffirms Congressional support for non-animal testing methodologies under TSCA. But it raises the question of "how the agency is implementing the same approach in all of its programmes that involve toxicity testing". It recommends that the EPA submit a report on its non-animal chemical testing work and its efforts to coordinate across federal agencies.
One narrow carve-out in the bill would prohibit appropriated funds from being used to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle under TSCA.
And the measure would also block the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) – funded at $62m, 17% below current levels – from issuing more than 40 toxicological profiles.
The legislation does not mention the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme, which has been a subject of contention in recent years and has recently seen a bill introduced to dismantle it entirely.
The Senate has yet to pass its own version of the appropriations bill. Legislation advanced by a subcommittee of the chamber, earlier this year, proposed to maintain the EPA's existing $8.05bn budget for next year.
To avoid a government shutdown, federal spending measures for the coming fiscal year must be agreed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by the president by October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68906/house-bill-would-cut-us-epa-budget-by-100m

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Pediatricians Group Urges Parents to Avoid These Chemicals

Jul 23, 2018 | CNN

By Maritza Moulite

A leading US medical organization representing more than 60,000 pediatricians recommends parents and children avoid certain chemicals used in food processing and called for the government to adjust its methods of deeming substances to be safe.
A policy statement published Monday by the American Academy of Pediatrics says that the regulatory framework for certain chemicals is antiquated and based on an outdated understanding of science.
An accompanying technical report cites mounting evidence of negative health effects in children from chemicals added to food in processing, such as flavoring and coloring, and substances indirectly affecting food through packaging and manufacturing, such as adhesives and coatings.
The report features "some striking and surprising concerns about the lack of attention that these chemicals have received by regulatory agencies," said Dr. Leonardo Trasande, director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine and lead author of the statement and report.
"Pound for pound, children eat more food and therefore have a higher level of exposure compared to us adults," Trasande said. "In addition, their developing organ systems are uniquely vulnerable. ...There can be fundamental disruptions in various endocrine functions that can manifest not only in early childhood but potentially in later life as a result of prenatal or infant exposure."
Trasande also cited several chemicals that are of distinct concern: bisphenols, used in aluminum can linings (bisphenol A was banned from baby bottles and sippy cups by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2012, but the FDA asserts its safety in food packaging); phthalates, used to make plastics soft; perchlorates, used in food packaging; and nitrates and nitrites, which are preservatives and color enhancers.
"Chemicals used in everyday products need to be rigorously evaluated for their full potential of human health impacts before they are made widely available in the marketplace," Dr. Maida P. Galvez, an associate professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told CNN previously.
Experts fear that these chemicals may have a range of side effects including thyroid hormone disruption, endocrine disruption that involves mimicking estrogen and blocking testosterone, brain development effects, increased risk of obesity and decreased birth weight.
"It's not simply calories in, calories out," Trasande said. "That used to be a convenient framework for thinking about obesity, but now we know that synthetic chemicals disrupt how calories are processed and ultimately converted into protein vs. sugar vs. fat.
"Even at a basic level, we understand that thyroid hormone is not only important for brain development but also heart function, bone function, muscle," he added. "Practically every organ system is touched by thyroid hormone function."
The American Chemistry Council, which represents companies in the chemical industry, said in a statement that Americans "should know that all plastics intended for contact with food are reviewed for safety and must meet stringent FDA safety requirements before they can be used in food packaging.
"Consumers want to know that the products they purchase -- including packaged foods -- will perform as expected, provide the desired benefit and are safe for their families. Plastics packaging is critical to protecting the quality and integrity of food, and to help in the safe transportation and storage of food."
There are three arms of action on this issue, Trasande explained. One is broader social action in which the public demands a change, the second is what pediatricians can do, and the third is what regulators can adjust to ensure safety.
About 1,000 chemicals are considered to be "Generally Recognized as Safe" without approval from the FDA, the authors noted. The FDA states that any substance purposely used as a food additive is subject to its approval, "unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use."
The academy has urged the government to revise its Generally Recognized As Safe process, making it more transparent and mandating additional tests for toxicity before approving chemicals to be used in food items.
"There are safe and simple steps that families can take to limit their exposure: reducing canned food consumption, avoiding microwaving plastic," Trasande said. "This is also another opportunity to emphasize the need for fresh fruit and vegetable consumption as opposed to other highly processed or packaged foods. Not only because of the nutrients and how they differ but also because of the chemical contamination that is much greater ... in fast food and other packaged foods."
Additional recommendations include avoiding processed meats, particularly during pregnancy, and avoiding food in plastic packaging that is labeled with the recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene, a suspected carcinogen) or 7 (bisphenols). An exception is if the plastics are labeled as "biobased" or "greenware," which signifies that they are corn-based and are not made with bisphenols, according to the report.

When possible, glass and stainless steel can be used instead of plastic. The academy also suggests washing hands before handling food and drinks, and washing fruits and vegetables that can't be peeled.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/health/aap-food-additive-chemicals-report/index.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) American Academy of Pediatrics Warns About Effect of Plastic, Chemicals on Children

Jul 23, 2018 | Wolf Tribune

By Emily MJ

An organization with over 60,000 pediatricians advises parents and children avoid a common chemical used in food processing and asks the government to update its regulatory efforts.
The American Academy of Pediatrics published a policy statement on Monday about using several kinds of well-known chemicals and the negative effect they have on growing children.
Bisphenols, phtalates, perchlorates, nitrates and nitrites are the particular chemicals of interest.
Dr. Leonardo Trasane, director of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics at New York University School of Medicine, said there are “some striking and surprising concerns about the lack of attention that these chemicals have received by regulatory agencies.”
A main concern is that since children eat more on a regular basis, they have a higher level of exposure to potential adverse side effects. Experts fear thyroid hormone disruption, brain development, an increased risk of obesity or decreased birth weight, and endocrine disruption are among the concerns of exposure.
Bisphenols are used in aluminum can linings and may sound familiar. The US Food and Drug Administration banned bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012. However, BPA is still used in food packaging and the FDA asserts its safety.
Phtalates are used to make plastics soft. Perchlorates are used in food packaging. Nitrates and nitrites are preservatives or color enhancers.
The fear behind these chemicals doesn’t comes without a statement from an argument from the other side. The American Chemistry Council represents companies in the industry. In a statement, the company stresses the importance of chemicals following strict requirements by the FDA to protect foods.
“Consumers want to know that the products they purchase — including packaged foods — will perform as expected, provide the desired benefit and are safe for their families. Plastics packaging is critical to protecting the quality and integrity of food, and to help in the safe transportation and storage of food.”
In a twist on expectations of regulation, there are roughly 1,000 chemicals considered “Generally Recognized as Safe” by FDA. That means the chemicals intended to be used as a food additive do not undergo stronger regulations. The assumption is they are made with the intention of being safe.
The academy has made an appeal to the government to revise the Generally Recognized as Safe rule. It wants more transparency and additional testing for toxicity.
Families that want to take precautionary steps to avoid contact with these chemicals are encouraged to purchase glass and stainless steel instead of plastics, avoid processed foods and avoid labeling that contains 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene, a suspected carcinogen) or 7 (bisphenols) recycling codes.
http://wolftribune.com/american-academy-of-pediatrics-warns-about-effect-of-plastic-chemicals-on-children

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco to Consider Outlawing Plastic Straws, Stirrers

Jul 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Janie Har

In a bid to further cut down on waste, eco-conscious San Francisco is expected to join Seattle in outlawing plastic straws used to suck down Mai Tais and slurp up bubble tea.
The proposal, to be taken up by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, also would make the novel move to ban vendors from using takeout containers made with fluorinated chemicals. Washington’s governor recently signed legislation approving a possible ban to go into effect in 2022, but San Francisco’s January 2020 deadline would be earlier.
The legislation prohibits eateries from using plastic anti-splashers, stirrers and other plastic items that environmentalists say are too small to be recycled properly.
Retailers would no longer be able to sell the items starting July 2019. In addition, food and drink vendors would be allowed to dispense cutlery, napkins, condiments and lids only on request or through self-serve stations.
People with disabilities have spoken out against the plastic straw ban, saying customers with mobility issues rely on the tubes to drink and paper or metal straws aren’t always appropriate. But businesses in politically progressive San Francisco appear to be largely in support, with Supervisor Katy Tang announcing the legislation at a popular bubble milk tea shop in May.
“It’s a movement not just happening in San Francisco but nationally and internationally,” said Peter Gallotta, spokesman for the city’s Department of Environment. “The larger elephant in the room is the single-use disposable culture we find ourselves in, and straws are the epitome of this unnecessary daily waste.”
The Washington, D.C.-based Plastics Industry Association issued a statement Monday saying a better solution is to expand recycling technology. “Regardless of what a straw is made of, we can all agree that it should not end up as litter,” it said.
Seattle is believed to be the first major U.S. city to shun plastic straws when its ban went into effect this month. Since then, the world’s largest coffee shop and hotel chains — Starbucks and Marriott — announced they too would move away from plastic straws and stirrers.
San Francisco has frequently led the way on policies considered eco-friendly. In 2007, it outlawed single-use plastic bags and in 2016, expanded its prohibition on foam food carryout containers to include retail sales of kiddie pool toys and packing peanuts.
Tuesday’s legislation calls for to-go containers and wrappers to be free of fluorinated chemicals. The chemicals are used to ward off grease, but the chemicals do not degrade, said Jen Jackson, toxics reduction manager at the San Francisco Department of Environment.
“It doesn’t compost,” she said, “so it will remain and continue to accumulate in the environment.”
Jonathan Corley, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a trade association, said Monday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed the chemicals currently used to package to-go food is safe.
“This potential ban is unnecessary, contrary to sound science and will provide no further benefits to public health or the environment,” he said in a statement.
Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, said restaurateurs have no desire to pass on toxins through carryout containers. But the higher cost of compostable fluorinated-free containers will drive businesses to return to recyclable plastic containers, she said.
“It’s an interesting evolution,” Borden said, “but sometimes making decisions premature to fully understanding the science can be difficult.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/san-francisco-to-consider-outlawing-plastic-straws-stirrers/2018/07/24/3b5616c6-8f0e-11e8-ae59-01880eac5f1d_story.html?utm_term=.12b8cd07d3c3

Return to headline | Return to top
House Bill Decentralizing EPA Chemical Reviews Gets New Chance

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

Legislation that would distribute the EPA’s chemical assessment responsibilities among its offices, instead of leaving them to a single agency program, is getting another chance at a committee markup July 24.
The House Science, Space, & Technology Committee had scheduled a July 18 markup on a bill from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), but Biggs said he heard just before the markup that the House parliamentarian instead assigned it to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Biggs then modified the bill to bring it within the science committee’s jurisdiction.
The “Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act” proposes to change the 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, which created the agency’s Science Advisory Board, a group of administrator-appointed advisers that review chemical assessments. The bill doesn’t make changes to the board itself.
House Democrats and environmental groups have criticized the bill, warning the proposed changes could lead to regulatory disarray.
Distributed Assessments
The agency’s chemical assessments are the basis of many EPA decisions regarding standards and regulations in multiple areas from air, water, and chemicals to contaminated sites and their cleanup. The agency’s Integrated Risk Information System program currently conducts those assessments. If the bill becomes law, the assessments would be distributed among the agency’s individual program offices.
The bill also calls for a chemical hazard identification and dose response steering committee made up of EPA staff and led by the political appointee heading the Office of Research and Development, who hasn’t been named. The committee seeks to prevent duplication among the agency’s offices, according to the legislation.
The IRIS program has come under fire from House Republicans, including Biggs, and the chemical industry for what they say is a lack of transparency. Last year, the lawmaker introduced, then withdrew, an amendment to a spending bill (H.R.3354) that would have prevented the program from receiving any funding.
Democrats and environmentalists, however, say Biggs’ bill would effectively gut the IRIS program and lead to a profusion of disparate chemical standards that would be confusing and less effective.
The National Academy of Sciences reported in April that IRIS is making strides toward greater transparency and accelerating the assessment process. The program is “dramatically more systematic, transparent, and scientifically defensible” than it was in a 2010 National Academies review, the April 11 report said.
The program’s internal changes include informing the public how it will assess chemicals and incorporating the most recent scientific research into its decisions.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/house-bill-decentralizing-epa-chemical-reviews-gets-new-chance

Return to headline | Return to top
Despite Jurisdiction Fight, House Science Panel Slates Chemical Bill Markup

Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

The House science committee is slated to mark up a revised draft version of its bill scaling back EPA's influential but controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program July 24, despite having just lost a jurisdictional dispute with the Energy and Commerce Committee which had stalled a recently introduced version of the legislation.
The science committee's decision to ramp up its fight with the energy committee over the bill appears unlikely to aid its eventual passage, adding to reports that EPA program offices are concerned that the measure would result in new risk assessment burdens that they likely lack the resources to conduct.
According to a July 20 announcement, the committee is planning a July 24 markup of the “Improving Science In Chemical Assessments Act.”
Last week, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the chairman of the science committee's environment panel, and more than a dozen other committee members, introduced H.R. 6399, a similarly named bill, known as the Chemical Assessments Improvement Act,” but the House Parliamentarian referred it to the Energy and Commerce Committee, forcing the science committee to cancel its planned July 18 markup.
A committee spokeswoman later explained that the bill had been pulled from the markup because of a “jurisdictional issue.”
Another committee source says Biggs didn't check which panel would win jurisdiction and his staff was surprised when the parliamentarian referred the bill to the energy committee instead of the science committee.
The spokeswoman later said that the committee would be marking up a “new draft.”
The committee source describes the new draft bill as an attempt to re-do H.R. 6399 after it was referred outside the science committee. The source says the bill is largely the same, but altered to try to win a joint referral from the parliamentarian to both the science and energy committees.
According to a draft version of the bill obtained by Inside EPA, Biggs has added language making the measure an amendment to the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, the statute authorizing various EPA research and scientific activities and which falls under the science committee's jurisdiction.
Draft Legislation
The new draft legislation also adds language requiring EPA to provide reports to the science committee, energy committee and Senate environment committee certifying that in performing the chemical assessments, program offices followed the bill's directives and the assessments were based on the “weight of scientific evidence.”
It is not clear whether the new draft legislation will avoid another jurisdictional dispute. A spokeswoman for the energy committee did not respond to a request seeking comment.
As introduced, H.R. 6399 would fundamentally alter EPA's IRIS program, by divesting it of all ongoing and future assessments, and instead directing them to be conducted by the interested program office. Additionally, the bill establishes a new intra-agency committee to manage the program, proposing an approach similar to how IRIS started operations in the 1980s. The bill also includes language with specific direction on how EPA will establish toxicity risk estimates.
“Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Sciences for its lack of transparency and reliance on faulty research. My bill ensures that future chemical assessments will be carried out only when necessary, will be subject to proper oversight, and will rely on the best available scientific methods,” Biggs said in a July 17 statement.
But the science committee source says there are rumors that officials in some of EPA's program offices do not like the bill, and if true, Energy and Commerce may kill the bill.
A former EPA official says that EPA's Superfund office has historically relied on IRIS and EPA's research office to conduct its chemical analyses -- and never staffed up to do so itself.
Similarly, EPA's toxics office is swamped in its efforts to comply with Congress' significant reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the many deadlines associated with it.
But EPA's pesticide office may be less opposed to the bill. It has long jockeyed with IRIS over primacy on pesticide chemical assessments. While the pesticides office (OPP) conducts the risk analyses underlying pesticides' registration decisions, IRIS has not added OPP's updated assessments of pesticide chemicals -- most from the 1980s or 1990s -- to the IRIS database.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-jurisdiction-fight-house-science-panel-slates-chemical-bill-markup

Return to headline | Return to top
Savogran to Offer Paint Remover Line Without Two Spurned Solvents (1)

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The Savogran Co., a consumer goods manufacturer, is introducing a line of paint removers with what it says are less hazardous ingredients after major retailers announced that they won’t stock products containing two common solvents.
The five paint and coating removers will be made with acetal, which Mark Monique, president of Savogran, said has a better environmental and toxicological profile, and a bio-based detergent-like chemical called a surfactant, which can act like a solvent. These will replace methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone, dubbed NMP, two solvents commonly found in these types of products, he said.
Lowe’s, Sherwin-Williams Co., and Home Depot Product Authority LLC announced that they no longer will carry paint or coating removers containing either solvent by the end of this year.
Savogran released photos of its product line on its website July 23. Those products will be ready for shipping Sept. 1, Monique told Bloomberg Environment.
The Norwood, Mass.-based company will be the first to introduce acetal and the bio-based surfactant to the U.S. market as substitutes for methylene chloride and NMP, he said.
Companies that already sell paint strippers without either of those two solvents typically use chemicals such as benzyl alcohol; dibasic esters; acetone, toluene, and methanol (ATM); and caustic chemicals, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Drivers
The retailers’ actions follow a campaign urging stores to stop selling both solvents.
The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, a coalition of environmental, health, and labor organizations, mounted that campaign after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed—during the last days of the Obama administration—to ban the sale of consumer paint removers containing the solvents. The Trump administration placed that proposal on hold.
Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met in May with some people whose family members died following methylene chloride exposure. He pledged to take some action to ban or restrict the consumer use of methylene chloride, but the agency hasn’t done so. Nor has it sent a proposed final rule to a White House office for review, a necessary step before issuing the rule.
At least 17 bathtub finishers who used products containing methylene chloride have died, according to state health departments.
N-methylpyrrolidone could harm babies’ development when a pregnant woman is exposed to high concentrations, according to the EPA.
‘Dinosaur Chemistries’
“We applaud Savogran for taking this significant step. We hope they will go even further and completely phase out the sale of methylene chloride and NMP-based paint strippers by the end of this year,” said Mike Schade, director of Safer Chemicals’ Mind the Store campaign.
“Other companies like W.M. Barr should follow suit and bring safer paint strippers to market and phase out these dinosaur chemistries,” he said.
W.M. Barr & Co. Inc., which according to its website makes some paint strippers containing both solvents, did not reply to Bloomberg Enviroment’s request for comment. The Memphis, Tenn.-based company also makes a line of paint strippers without methylene chloride or NMP.
Technical Challenge
Ridding products of methylene chloride has been “the holy grail of my career since I started with Savogran in 1987,” Monique said.
That was just after a 1986 National Toxicology Program study found that laboratory rats and mice exposed to methylene chloride got tumors. The program later classified the solvent as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen.
Monique wasn’t convinced that the animal studies predicted relevant human results, but “the ‘rabbit’ was out of the hat,” and a substitute solvent needed to be found, he said.
Finding substitutes that worked, which were safer and did not have methylene chloride’s beneficial attributes—such as being non-flammable, was a challenge, Monique said.
NMP, which once “was billed as a safe alternative,” was among the chemicals that Savogran used to replace methylene chloride only to find that it too raised concerns, he said.
Having replaced methylene chloride previously with alternatives later found to pose health risks, Monique was reluctant to predict what future studies could conclude about Savogran’s latest solvents.
“I guess the plain answer is anything strong enough to remove paint needs to be properly handled (whether methylene chloride or not) and the instructions on the label must be followed,” he said by email.
Monique declined to give a dollar value for the company’s research and development effort. Primarily, “It involved my time in the lab which comprises 12 research notebooks,” he said.
(Updated with additional reporting in fifth, sixth, and 14th paragraphs.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/savogran-to-offer-paint-remover-line-without-two-spurned-solvents-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Notorious Cancer-Causing Solvent TCE Taints Tap Water for 14 Million Americans

Jul 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

Tap water supplies for more than 14 million Americans are contaminated with a cancer-causing industrial solvent made notorious by the book and film “A Civil Action,” according to an Environmental Working Group investigation released today.
The chemical is trichloroethylene, or TCE. Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is retreating from an earlier proposal to ban key uses of the chemical, and it is excluding water, air and soil pollution from a safety assessment under the nation’s overhauled toxic chemicals law.
Drinking TCE-contaminated water has been linked to liver and kidney damage, and to cancers like leukemia. It has also been linked to birth defects, but EPA documents raise concern that the agency will downplay important evidence that TCE exposure causes heart defects in developing fetuses.
“People whose water contains TCE can be exposed not just by drinking it, but also by inhaling it while bathing, washing dishes and doing other household activities,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG. “Communities across the country have water with potentially harmful levels of this toxic solvent, but many people don’t know about the risk they face when they turn on the tap.”
In 2015, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available, TCE was detected in EPA-mandated tests by more than 300 public water systems in 36 states. EWG’s Tap Water Database, which aggregates test results from utilities nationwide, shows that in about half of those systems, average annual levels of TCE were above what some health authorities say is safe for infants and developing fetuses. EWG’s interactive map shows the locations of all systems with TCE contamination in 2015.
In December 2016, the EPA proposed banning uses of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and a spot cleaner. It was the first ban proposed in more than 25 years under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the nation’s primary chemical law. A month later, the EPA also proposed banning TCE in vapor degreasing. The ban on these uses would have protected the health of tens of thousands of workers who come in contact with TCE or TCE-containing products, and over 100,000 people who live near businesses that use and discharge TCE.
After aggressive lobbying from the chemical industry, Trump’s EPA signaled plans to scrap the proposed bans on TCE for aerosol degreasing, spot cleaning and vapor degreasing. The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, a trade association representing TCE manufacturers, repeatedly requested that the EPA and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delay decision-making on the proposed bans, and its requests were granted.
“The chemical industry’s efforts paid off,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney at EWG. “This is just the latest of the Trump administration’s many actions to make life more toxic for Americans. Allowing this dangerous chemical to remain in commerce is further evidence that the Trump administration will abandon public health at the directive of the chemical industry.”
In the absence of federal leadership, some states are taking actions to protect their residents from TCE. Minnesota has set a health-based guideline for TCE in drinking water more than 10 times lower than the federal legal limit. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has published recommendations for mitigating TCE contamination in indoor air and guidance for addressing toxic chemical vapor intrusion.
Many people – especially pregnant women, and families with infants or small children – may not want to wait until their public water system installs TCE treatment.
“Concerned families can remove or reduce TCE from their tap water with an inexpensive carbon-based filter,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG’s senior science advisor for children’s environmental health. “But to protect everyone, coordinated state and federal action is required. People should not have to bear the costs of pollution caused by industry.”
Minnesota health officials also recommend ventilating indoor air while bathing or showering, cooking, and while running the dishwasher or washing machine, as an effective way to reduce the amount of TCE in indoor air.
https://www.ewg.org/release/notorious-cancer-causing-solvent-tce-taints-tap-water-14-million-americans#.W1cTw9Uza6I

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Colorado’s Leap into the Shale Boom Sparks a Ballot Box Threat

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alex Nussbaum and Catherine Traywick

For Colorado shale drillers, 2018’s been a record-setter for pumping oil and natural gas. It may also end up a banner year for the industry’s political foes.
Spurred on by a fatal gas explosion last year, industry critics are pushing an initiative for November’s ballot that may ban drilling in more than half the state, endangering output from one of the country’s most prolific drilling plays. The contest for governor, meanwhile, features a Democrat, U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, who made his name in Colorado politics by bankrolling anti-fracking campaigns.
The contests could mark a turning point in the long-running battle over drilling in Colorado, a politically mixed state where explorers, environmentalists, and local residents have clashed as in few other places. With polls showing a “blue wave” of support for Democrats nationwide, Polis and the ballot initiative both stand a good chance, leaving the industry’s future up in the air, according to Height Securities LLC.
“The November election in Colorado is likely an inflection point for the state’s oil and gas industry,” Height analysts Katie Bays and Josh Price wrote in a July 11 research note. That could have “market-moving consequences” for producers with a major Colorado presence like Noble Energy Inc., Extraction Oil & Gas Inc. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., they said.
As a counterpunch, business groups have pitched their own set of ballot questionsthat would require property owners be compensated for any loss in the market value of drilling rights due to new regulations. That could hobble local government efforts to clamp down, said Welles Fitzpatrick, an analyst for SunTrust Robinson Humphrey Inc.
All the initiatives face an Aug. 6 deadline to gather enough signatures to make it onto the ballot.
For voters here, the controversy is nothing new.
Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have propelled Colorado into the upper echelon of oil and gas producers nationwide—and run smack into the growing population in the Denver suburbs and the Front Range region along the Rockies. The state produced a record 450,000 barrels a day of crude in April and 149 billion cubic feet of natural gas, just shy of the all-time high, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
Expanded Buffer Zones
The industry’s biggest worry this year is Initiative 97, a proposal to expand the buffer zone required between oil and gas wells and homes, schools, and other occupied structures. The initiative would mandate a 2,500-foot setback, up from 500 feet today.
More significantly, it would extend the requirement to cover lakes, streams, parks, open space, and a variety of other “vulnerable areas.” Altogether, more than 54 percent of the state’s land area would be off-limits to new drilling, according to an analysis by the state Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. In Colorado’s top five producing counties, 61 percent of acreage would be inaccessible.
“That is effectively a ban on the industry,” Dan Haley, president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, an industry group, said in an interview. “You’d basically have no new wells drilled in Colorado.“
A similar proposal in 2016 failed to gain enough signatures to make it onto the ballot. But 2018 may be different, in part due to last year’s fatal accident in Firestone, north of Denver. Two men died and a woman was injured in a home explosion that was linked to an abandoned gas line.
The tragedy “made people understand the dangers of having toxic, industrial oil and gas operations right in the middle of our neighborhoods,” said Micah Parkin of Colorado Rising, a group backing Initiative 97. “Why should the industry get special treatment?“
Federal Land Exempt
The proposal wouldn’t end drilling in Colorado, Parkin said. Federal land, which covers about a third of the state, would be exempt from the buffers. And explorers can drill horizontal wells, allowing access to reserves even if the property directly above is off-limits, she said.
Even if the measure wins approval, the state’s legislature could still move to soften the blow. Republicans who’ve generally opposed more regulation of the industry have a slim majority in the state Senate, although that too could change after November’s election.
Energy and natural resources generated more than $13 billion and supported 150,000 jobs in Colorado last year, according to state figures. Initiative 97 is enough of a threat that even Polis, the Democrat who’s championed past drilling restrictions, has come out against it.
The millionaire businessman from Boulder helped finance campaigns in 2014 to tighten regulations on fracking, although they failed to make it onto the ballot. This time around, he’s dialed down some of his criticism as he seeks support across the state. His website trumpets his plans to generate 100 percent of the state’s energy from renewable sources by 2040. But it makes no mention of fracking, pro or con. Polis declined a request for an interview.
His Republican opponent, state Treasurer Walker Stapleton, also opposes Initiative 97. His website promises he’ll promote a “low-cost energy supply” and avoid “burdensome, job-killing regulations.“
Polis led Stapleton among likely voters, 42 percent to 37 percent, in a June pollcommissioned by a Colorado labor union.
The Democrat understands the state can’t afford to undermine the industry, said Fitzpatrick, the SunTrust analyst.
“He has had his come-to-Jesus moment where he can either pick his crusade against oil and gas or he can pick every other pillar in his platform,” he said. “Is he going to shoot himself in the foot because he doesn’t like oil and gas? I find that hard to believe.“
—With assistance from Ryan Collins.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/colorados-leap-into-the-shale-boom-sparks-a-ballot-box-threat

Return to headline | Return to top
Permian Operators Not ‘Backing Down,’ But Marcellus Activity ‘Softening,’ Says Halliburton CEO

Jul 23, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

The CEO of North America’s leading pressure pumper Halliburton Co. said Permian Basin operators do not seem overly concerned about potential oil and natural gas takeaway constraints as activity continues to be strong.
Jeff Miller led a conference call early Monday with his management team to discuss second quarter performance. The completion and production division’s operating income climbed by 34%, primarily driven by the strength of U.S. land operations, he told analysts.
“Despite pricing levels that have yet to fully rebound from the recent downcycle, we are achieving outstanding margins. North America had a strong performance this quarter. This is the largest and fastest growing energy market in the world. On a year-to-date basis, we have grown revenues 47% year/year, while the U.S. land rig count has increased 16%. U.S. land achieved margins that are closing in on what we achieved during the previous peak in 2014.”
A lot of industry chatter of late has been around the coming lack of offtake capacity from the Permian Basin. However, a slowdown is not in sight, Miller said.
“During the last few weeks I visited with customers in the Permian, and they don't look like a group that's backing down,” he said. “I can see it in their eyes. They feel good about where they are and how they’re positioned for the long run. Don't underestimate this group. They are competitive. We'll figure out how to deal with constraints, and we'll adapt.”
Miller said he was not “naïve to the math around the offtake issue, but as we've seen so far, our customers will not all react in the same manner. There are customers that have moved their focus from one basin to another, and we're there pursuing that work. Other customers plan to reduce activity over the short term or are adding fewer rigs than expected, and we'll find new work to replace them.”
Compared to what Halliburton has seen in the past regarding offtake constraints, “tightness is an indicator of a great resource, and what is occurring in the Permian today is not new,” said the CEO. Similar challenges were managed in the Williston Basin during the last upcycle and are being handled in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) Basin today.
“The DJ has suffered constraints on gas takeaway all year, but our customers have managed their businesses and remain productive as have we,” Miller said. “This work may not be as efficient as it could have been, but we've taken action to maximize our revenue and control our costs.”
Constraints in the DJ should alleviate in early 2019 as additional offtake capacity comes online.
“The same will be true in the Permian, which is best suited to handle this type of challenge and will do so as quickly as possible,” Miller said. “In the interim, we're going to keep equipment working, control our costs and outperform our competitors.”
Meanwhile, in the Marcellus Shale, Miller disclosed “some softening in activity, as our customers hit the production targets earlier than planned. In some ways, we're a victim of our own success, as we develop longer laterals with better production. As a result, we expect this area to have temporary softness in the back half of 2018, but it's poised to regain activity as the calendar turns to 2019 and additional pipeline capacity is available. We will manage through the year-end and be ready for the increased activity next year.”
These “temporary efficiency drags will create headwinds for additional upward pricing in the third quarter,” Miller warned. “Our competitors' new and uncontracted equipment is also creating pricing pressure in some areas.”
While fast-growing markets “present tremendous opportunities,” they often result in “temporary challenges,” Miller said. “With the expected activity in the second half of this year, we're mindful of the impact of cost inflation from trucking and increased maintenance expense. The use of trucking for sand, water and crude oil is generating intense demand for trucks and truck drivers, thus creating cost inflation.”
To offset inflation, Halliburton is managing the trucking costs by using containerized sand and integrated logistics, and “our equipment has never worked harder than it's working today,” he said. “Increased pumping time and sand loading continues to cause more wear and tear.”
Regarding basin dynamics, Miller attempted to justify why the company is not reacting as swiftly as some analysts have said it should as the market dynamics change.
“Look, I could take some actions that would allow us to achieve our margin goals today, but I believe that will sacrifice our market position and impair long-term value,” he said. “We do not manage the business to achieve short-term expectations. We manage the business around long-term strategic goals.
"We will stay focused on our strategy, maintain our market share and not sacrifice either to achieve our margin goals in the near term. We built market share during the downturn on our strong belief in the long-term potential of the North American market. We are a returns-focused company. To deliver returns, market share and scale matter, we intend to maintain this expanded market position as our scale delivers outsized operating income, cash flow and returns.”
Halliburton’s third quarter earnings are expected to be similar to the second quarter because of the “temporary issues facing North America. That's a great outcome. I like where we are, and it will serve as an excellent bridge to a strong 2019...The temporary challenges will soon abate, and I believe global supply and demand dynamics will support continued industry growth, which I expect will accelerate in 2019.”
Net income climbed to $511 million (58 cents/share) in the quarter from year-ago profits of $28 million (3 cents). Revenue increased to $6.147 billion from $4.957 billion.
North America revenue came in 9% higher sequentially to $3.8 billion on improvements in the U.S. onshore across most of the product service lines, primarily pressure pumping, drilling and artificial lift activity. Partially offsetting the uptick were lower pressure pumping activity in Canada from the spring thaw and reduced drilling fluid activity in the Gulf of Mexico.
Drilling and evaluation revenue totaled $2.0 billion, 3% higher sequentially, while operating income rose 2% to $191 million.
Latin America revenue climbed 5% sequentially to $479 million, mostly because of stronger software sales and project management activity in Mexico, as well as stimulation activity in Argentina.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115151-permian-operators-not-backing-down-but-marcellus-activity-softening-says-halliburton-ceo

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

EPA Pushes Back Chemical Safety Rollback Amid Data Dispute

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson

Companies will have to wait a little longer for the EPA to finish work on a rollback of chemical facility safety rules after the agency failed to post data justifying the action.
The public will have another 30 days to weigh in on the plan, the EPA said in a noticescheduled for publication in the Federal Register July 24, in response to the lapse.
The decision could set back the administration’s timeline to rescind the Obama program and replace it with provisions that industry organizations support. It also comes as litigation, Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, that challenges the delay of the old regulation is pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Environmental Protection Agency is working to implement industry-backed changes to tougher chemical plant safety rules the Obama administration developed after a fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, killed 15 people in 2013.
The Trump administration wants to eliminate requirements for companies to analyze whether they can run facilities using safer methods, conduct outside audits of operations, investigate chemical incidents, and make more information about facilities’ holdings available to the public.
“I think it’s one of the old remnants of the Scott Pruitt regime,” Yogin Kothari, a senior Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment July 23, referencing the agency’s former administrator who resigned earlier this month. “The EPA has been doing a lot of sloppy work.”
Check EPA’s Work
The EPA used data collected under the program from industrial facilities in 2017 to justify its rollback of the safety rules (RIN:2050–AG95), which it released May 30.
The data show chemical holding information reported by companies and how they plan to manage the chemicals under the program. The EPA used the figures to calculate that the changes would save companies more than $80 million annually. Reviewing it would let groups determine whether the figure is accurate.
The agency granted the delay after the nonprofit Earthjustice asked about the missing data in an email to EPA career staff July 9, records show. Eight environmental groups, the United Steelworkers and United Automobile Workers labor unions, and seven states subsequently requested an extra 60 days to review the data.
Finalizing the regulation without posting the data could have left the standard vulnerable to legal challenge. It also provides more time for judges at the D.C. Circuit to weigh in, Bethany Davis Noll, litigation director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, told Bloomberg Environment July 23.
The EPA didn’t respond to a request for comment by Bloomberg Environment July 23.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-pushes-back-chemical-safety-rollback-amid-data-dispute

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Extends Deadline for Input on RMP Revisions

Jul 23, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending by several weeks its deadline for public input on the Trump administration's proposed rule scaling back the Obama-era update to the agency's facility accident prevention program to allow input on data EPA recently added to a public docket after environmentalists noted it was missing and requested additional time for comment.
In a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register July 24, EPA extends by roughly three weeks -- from July 30 to Aug. 24 -- its deadline for input on its May 30 proposed rule seeking to revise the Obama EPA's update to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule.
The deadline extension comes after EPA July 11 added to the public docket a November 2017 database of RMP data that covered facilities submitted to the agency. EPA relied on the database in crafting the proposed rule and analyzing its impacts.
EPA says that comparing that November 2017 database to a February 2015 version revealed only minor differences in covered facilities, with the exception of the number of accidents. In proposing the revision rule EPA cited chemical industry arguments that facility accidents have declined under the rule's long-standing requirements.
Earthjustice, which opposes EPA's effort to scale back the Obama-era rule and has challenged the Trump administration's delay of that rule in federal appellate court, notified EPA of the missing data in a July 9 email.
In addition to urging EPA to add the data to the public docket, Earthjustice requested a 60-day extension of the deadline for public input and argued that the Clean Air Act requires an extension of at least 30 days after notice of the data is published in the Register.
“On behalf of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Coming Clean, and Air Alliance Houston, we respectfully request that EPA extend the public comment deadline as required, and do so for the full 60 days it originally recognized is needed to assure a meaningful time for public review and comment on this proposal, after the data are placed into the docket,” the email says.
“In addition, to satisfy the Clean Air Act EPA must publish notice to the public and assure at least 30 days of comment period on the proposed rule, after it publishes a notice of these data in the Federal Register.”
While EPA is extending the comment deadline by three weeks, the agency denied the group's request for a 60-day extension.
“Because the November 2017 database was used mostly for corroboration, we do not believe there were fundamental data about sources subject to the RMP Rule that could not have been observed in the 2015 database that was already in the docket,” EPA says in the notice.
“In the interest of expeditiously completing the reconsideration process and putting into effect provisions of the Amendments that we intend to retain or modify, we believe closing comments” 30 days after the publication of the July 24 notice, “strikes an appropriate balance.”
EPA is currently seeking comment on the proposed RMP rescission rule that would scrap an Obama-era update rule's requirements that certain facilities conduct third-party audits and analyze safer alternatives. The plan would also scrap certain incident investigation and information sharing requirements.
Shortly before the Obama administration left office in 2017, EPA issued the final rule updating RMP with new requirements in response to the former president's August 2013 executive order on improving industrial facility safety after a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders.
The Trump administration in June 2017 delayed the effective date of the rule by nearly two years -- until Feb. 19, 2019, saying it needed the time to reconsider and potentially reverse some of the changes. The delay followed petitions from industry and roughly a dozen Republican-led states that argued that the revisions were unnecessary and that the disclosure provisions could worsen terror threats.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-deadline-input-rmp-revisions

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Shuster Proposal Aims to 'Reignite' Reform Efforts

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Maxine Joselow

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) yesterday released a draft infrastructure bill in an effort to reinvigorate stalled momentum on the issue.
The draft language contains a plethora of proposals for addressing the nation's "crumbling infrastructure" — a familiar refrain on the Hill.
One proposal involves establishing a pilot program for a "per-mile" user fee — an alternative to raising the federal gasoline tax. Oregon started a voluntary program in 2015 to charge a 1.7-cent-per-mile tax for using public roads (Greenwire, Feb. 22). A common complaint about Trump's plan was that it lacked pay-fors.
Another proposal involves creating a 15-member Highway Trust Fund Commission. Some of its members would be appointed by lawmakers, while others would be selected by the secretary of Transportation.
The commission would be tasked with conducting a study that "identifies the current and future needs of the Nation's surface transportation system," among other things.
The draft legislation would also codify President Trump's Aug. 15, 2017, executive order on streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects. It would seek to limit the timetable for National Environmental Policy Act reviews to two years.
In a statement, Shuster said he was "frustrated" by the lack of progress on Trump's plan floated in February, which called for a $200 billion federal investment to leverage investment from the private sector.
"The 2016 presidential campaign shined a spotlight on America's crumbling infrastructure," Shuster said. "Since election day, the American people have waited for action by their federal elected representatives, and I am just as frustrated as they are that we have yet to seriously consider a responsible, thoughtful proposal."
While Shuster hopes to push through a broad infrastructure bill before he leaves Congress at the end of the year, it would be a heavy political lift. Floor time is typically limited during the second half of an election year, as are congressional appetites for tackling major legislation.
Still, Shuster said he was hopeful that his proposal would at least be a conversation starter for his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
"This discussion draft does not represent a complete and final infrastructure bill," he said. "It is meant to reignite discussions amongst my colleagues, and I urge all Members to be open-minded and willing to work together in considering real solutions that will give America the modern day infrastructure it needs."
Reporter Nick Sobczyk contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/24/stories/1060090127

Return to headline | Return to top
These New Jerseyans Want to Bring “Bomb Trains” to a Halt

Jul 24, 2018 | National Resources Defense Council

By Nicole Greenfield

On an early-summer morning five years ago, an unattended 74-car train carrying highly flammable crude oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota rolled down a hill and into the small town of Lac-Mégantic, Québec. The resulting explosion, which railway workers described as apocalyptic, killed 47 people and destroyed much of the town, making the disaster one of the deadliest rail accidents in recent history.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t the last. Since 2013, other devastating accidents involving crude-carrying trains have occurred across the United States and Canada—in West Virginia, Oregon, and Ontario, to name a few places—and New Jerseyans fear one of their communities could be the next to suffer from a “bomb train” disaster.
“I’d never paid attention to the trains, which pass a couple blocks from my house,” says Teaneck resident Paula Rogovin. “I’d see them, but you don’t really think about something until you need to.”
After learning about the dangers of crude-by-rail and the growing frequency with which the trains were traveling through her neighborhood—adjacent to schools, daycare and senior centers, and, critically, the drinking-water supply for roughly a million people—Rogovin decided to do something about it. A lifelong activist, she organized a protest against the threat the oil trains posed to her community. Only six people attended that initial rally in August 2014, which took place next to the CSX tracks that run past a park and ball field in Teaneck. But Rogovin and her fellow advocates weren’t discouraged. They continued to spread the word about the trains to their neighbors and scheduled a second rally three months later. This time, more than 50 people turned up.
The interest in the issue inspired Rogovin to keep pushing for greater awareness of the threats faced by the seven New Jersey counties through which ran the CSX River Line, the rail line that the oil trains barreled along. In 2015 she founded the Coalition to Ban Unsafe Oil Trains, and the group began lobbying state lawmakers to implement policies that would hold train owners accountable for the safety of their operations.Dangerous Freight
“In the beginning we thought we just needed safer tank cars,” Rogovin says. “We soon learned that the cars really weren’t the problem.” In fact, one of the biggest problems is the oil itself. Bakken crude has earned a reputation for being extremely combustible, due to its high concentration of volatile gases like propone, butane, and ethane released by the fracking process.
When the oil is transported by train—in chains of up to 120 cars that stretch a mile long—it’s like shaking these explosive chemicals in a tin can, distilling the oil from the gases and increasing what’s known as vapor pressure, explains Kimberly Ong, an NRDC staff attorney who focuses on Northeast regional issues. Ong is working alongside other environmental and community groups to advocate for federal safeguards for crude-by-rail trains—including limits on vapor pressure, which can be controlled by existing technologies. Because of legal loopholes, there is currently no cap on the cargo flammability of these trains, which pass near the homes of some 25 million Americans. A collision or derailment could result in the train cars exploding in a chain reaction, with one igniting after the other, explains Ong. What’s more, there are few measures in place to minimize the potential damage. Most fire departments in New Jersey (and other states through which these trains run) aren’t equipped to control such disasters, so the fires can last for days and require the evacuation of entire communities.
And this problem is becoming more prevalent. As fracking in North Dakota has boomed, so has the number of crude-oil trains crisscrossing the country. According to the Association of American Railroads, between 2008 and 2014 crude-by-rail traffic jumped from 9,500 to more than 490,000 carloads per year, an increase of more than 5,000 percent. In 2014, oil train spills also hit a record high of 141 incidents yielding “unintentional releases,” according to reports from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. (Between 1975 and 2012, an average of 25 spills took place each year on U.S. railroads.) The numbers attest to the ever-present dangers associated with the practice of transporting crude by rail, says Ong, who adds, “Even if the federal government were to place limits on oil volatility in trains, it is still unclear whether we can ever make oil trains truly safe.”
Up to several dozen bomb trains pass through New Jersey every week, first arriving in Albany, New York, from the west, then turning south on their journey to an oil refinery in Philadelphia. Along the way, they slice through the heart of the Hackensack River watershed, traveling near or over four reservoirs, then traversing 8,500 acres of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the lower part of the watershed. And once they get to Newark, New Jersey, the freight tracks run parallel to the Northeast Corridor, the busiest passenger rail line in the United States.Rallying for Change
From his boat, Captain Hugh Carola of Hackensack Riverkeeper (a member of the Coalition to Ban Unsafe Oil Trains) has witnessed the state of utter disrepair of portions of the local freight lines. “These trains cross some ridiculously rusted and cracked bridges in Bergen, Hudson, and Essex Counties,” he says. Though Carola and other members of the coalition continue to strive toward its namesake goal (a total ban), they are currently focused on more easily achievable interim steps. “If we can’t stop these trains,” he says, “we want to at least ensure that the first responders know when they’re coming through and that every rail and bridge is inspected.”
The coalition is pressing for action on a proposed oil train transparency bill that would require railroads to develop a response plan for potential spills. The New Jersey state legislature passed the bill last year, but then-Governor Chris Christie, pressured by CSX, vetoed it. In March, however, under the state’s new, more environmentally conscious governor, Chris Murphy, senate majority leader Loretta Weinberg reintroduced the bill, hoping to see it signed into law.
Because hopes of gaining stronger federal crude-by-rail regulations have been stymied by the Trump administration, such local and state efforts are critical. The Coalition to Ban Unsafe Oil Trains continues to organize demonstrations, hold monthly meetings, and spread the word to neighbors. It’s also taken up another important cause: stopping the construction of a new fracked-gas power plant slated for New Jersey’s Meadowlands, meant to supply electricity to New York City.
“The key is to protect the water, protect the people, protect the community—now,” Carola emphasizes. “We need both long-term and short-term goals, and right now we’re working the short term. I don’t see anything positive long-term with this administration. We’ll do what we can at the state level.”
Rogovin, who just retired after 44 years as a schoolteacher, has no plans to give up her activism. “It’s frustrating when you fight the good fight and then you see it get turned around by Trump and company. But we continue to fight anyway, because we have to.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/these-new-jerseyans-want-bring-bomb-trains-halt

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Curbelo Eyes Climate Policy Talks with Carbon Tax Unveiling (1)

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

Even the main sponsor of the first Republican-introduced climate legislation in a decade admits the bill in the short term will likely be more of a conversation starter.
The legislation, unveiled July 23 by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and expected to be formally introduced later in the day, would establish a $24 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emitted from coal mines, refineries, gas processing plants, and certain industrial facilities, set to increase 2 percent per year.
The bill would eliminate the federal gas tax and invest 70 percent of the carbon tax revenue in infrastructure improvements, through the Highway Trust Fund.
“In the short-term, it will spark an important debate about investing in our country’s infrastructure, the way we tax, and what to do to protect the environment from the perils of human-induced changes in the climate,” Curbelo said during an event hosted by the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy. “While those invested in the depressing paradigm of bipolar politics will dismiss it summarily, many others will offer constructive criticisms and helpful ideas.”
But the new Republican bill is likely to face an uphill battle to find support among Republican lawmakers and conservative taxpayer groups. The legislation also has been criticized by some environmental groups, who say it doesn’t do enough to address climate change.
The bill’s unveiling comes on the heels of the July 19 passage, 229-180, of an anti-carbon-tax resolution in the House. The measure, offered by the House majority whip, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), calls a carbon tax “detrimental” to the American economy.
Just five Republicans joined Curbelo in voting against it: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Trey Hollingsworth (Ind.), Mia Love (Utah), Francis Rooney (Fla.), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.). Republican Rep. Ryan Costello (Pa.) voted present.
Anti-Carbon Tax Constituency
The large anti-carbon-tax Republican constituency underscores seemingly impossible path Curbelo’s legislation would face to advance past early stages.
Curbelo faces a tough re-election race this cycle in a south Florida district that voted 56 percent for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Curbelo, though, said his Republican colleagues are largely still looking at the idea of a carbon tax “in a vacuum”—that no tax is beneficial to the economy.
“Once this [bill] is filed and more members have the opportunity to analyze it and get feedback from their communities, you’re going to see more movement away from that reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to the idea of carbon pricing,” he said.
Supporters of Curbelo’s measure said the legislation sets up a way to jumpstart a conversation on climate solutions in the United States, during a time when the Trump administration is undoing much of the climate policy put in place by its predecessor.
Emissions Targets
“The bill would set the U.S. on a path to reduce carbon emissions that not only fulfills but exceeds the commitments set out by the Paris agreement,” Curbelo said.
The legislation sets greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of 27 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and 29 percent by 2030. The Obama administration’s target as part of the Paris climate deal set a reduction goal of 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
But the bill also would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources that are subject to the carbon tax—a step that some environmental groups called a nonstarter.
“It falls far short of what’s needed to protect our climate,” David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean energy program, said in a statement on the legislation. “We must deploy all available tools, not limit them as this bill does, to head off the worst damages from climate change.”
Nearly a decade ago, some Republicans supported cap-and-trade legislation. It passed the House but it died in the Senate.
(Adds link to bill text in second paragraph)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/curbelo-eyes-climate-policy-talks-with-carbon-tax-unveiling-1

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Says Sierra Club Lacks Standing for Suit over SIP Air Monitoring Rule

Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

EPA says Sierra Club lacks standing to pursue its lawsuit challenging an agency rule detailing public notice requirements for states' air quality monitoring plans because the group cannot show any harm from the policy, and is also rejecting a push by environmentalists to subject the plans to greater notice-and-comment mandates.
In a June 20 brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., EPA defends its March 2016 rule on the steps states must take to seek input on air monitoring in their state implementation plans (SIPs), which are blueprints for how states intend to comply with Clean Air Act mandates.
Sierra Club in the suit claims that EPA's rule sets inadequate terms for public input on monitoring plans, and that it weakens pre-existing requirements for monitoring of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution.
Environmentalists argue the rule should require monitoring plans to be subject to the same stringent procedural requirements as SIP approvals or other federal rules.
The Obama EPA's rule requires that states give 30 days' public notice of their air quality monitoring plans, but adds a requirement that states must accept public comment and address the comments in their submissions to EPA for the agency to to approve monitoring plans, the Department of Justice (DOJ) says in its brief on behalf of EPA.
The Clean Air Act “only requires SIPs to demonstrate the state’s authority to meet the substantive monitoring requirements required by EPA regulations. Requiring those monitoring provisions to be an actual part of the SIP itself would add unnecessary and potentially counter-productive procedural burdens on states and EPA,” DOJ says.
“For decades, EPA has reviewed and approved State monitoring plans apart from its review and approval of SIP submissions. As such, EPA has not required States’ monitoring plans -- and changes to those monitoring plans -- to go through the same public notice and comment requirements as SIP submissions at both the state and federal level.”
Further, “Sierra Club has not shown that this alleged failure on EPA’s part will cause an 'actual or imminent' injury to its members,” and hence Sierra Club lacks standing to sue. Sierra Club's arguments are “not properly before the court” because they are based on rule preamble language, which does not constitute judicially reviewable “final agency action,” DOJ argues. “EPA’s position that monitoring plans do not need to be treated the same as State Implementation Plans has been consistent for years, is supported by the text of the Clean Air Act, and is reasonable.”
With respect to the specific allegation that EPA weakened PM2.5 monitoring requirements, “Sierra Club has failed to identify an 'actual or imminent' injury caused by this change, and thus lacks standing to challenge it. Moreover, EPA’s changes to the frequency requirements for certain PM2.5 monitors were appropriate.”
The Obama EPA had been exploring a settlement agreement with Sierra Club to address alleged shortcomings in the rule, but the Trump administration withdrew from the proposed settlement agreement after adverse comment from third parties such as Texas. The settlement appeared to be at odds with former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s directive for the agency not to enter into so-called sue-and-settle agreements. Obama EPA critics used the term sue-and-settle to define cases where groups sued the agency to force it into legal pacts committing it to deadlines for rulemakings
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-says-sierra-club-lacks-standing-suit-over-sip-air-monitoring-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Residents Served by Pa. Environmental Justice Program Want More

Jul 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

Businesses seeking to win environmental permits near poor and minority neighborhoods across a third of Pennsylvania would need to step up engagement in a plan being panned in the community that kicked off the state’s push for environmental equality.
Pennsylvania’s first update to its environmental justice engagement policy since 2004 would alter how the state Department of Environmental Protection determines areas where additional outreach to affected communities is required. Businesses and permitting officials would need to cast a wider net when setting up public comment forums or issuing notices to affected communities.
The proposed revisions are being derided as toothless in some of the communities the policy is intended to serve.
“It’s a bit of a charade,” Mike Ewall, director of the Energy Justice Network, who has been involved with the town of Chester for the past 24 years, told Bloomberg Environment.
The town’s residents sued the state more than two decades ago, alleging the toxic cluster of waste incinerators and sewage treatment plants in the predominately black community amounted to environmental racism. They were one of the first communities in the nation to sue for environmental justice.
They took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court in Seif v. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living. Although the high court ruled the case moot and tossed it, the residents’ efforts spurred Pennsylvania to adopt measures to protect vulnerable communities, including the outreach policy now being updated.
“Chester provided some of the impetus for what we did,” John C. Dernbach, director of the Environmental Law and Sustainability Center at Widener University Commonwealth Law School in Harrisburg who was a policy director at the the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection at the time, told Bloomberg Environment.
Meetings Won’t Stop Permits
Though the updated policy would require more public meetings on permit applications, Ewall said it still allows regulators to “ignore everything that everyone says and issue a permit anyway.”
“It’s not environmental justice unless the agency can say ‘No’ to any new permits for polluting facilities for which sustainable alternatives exist,” he added.
The draft policy, issued July 14 for public comment, would change how the state defines an “environmental justice area” as a census block group with a 30 percent or greater minority population and/or 20 percent or more are living in poverty. A census block group contains between 600 and 3,000 people, while a census tract has a population between 1,200 and 8,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
That would designate 32.5 percent of the state as environmental justice areas, a 12 percent increase from the 2004 policy.
Businesses Look Elsewhere
Designating such a large swath of the state could force businesses that need permits to look elsewhere, John J. McAleese, a partner in the Environment and Energy Practice Group at McCarter & English LLP in Philadelphia, told Bloomberg Environment.
“There’s certainly going to be more work that has to be done to inform the community and possibly appease the community,” he said.
The Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania, a division of the American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association that represents the oil and natural gas industry, said it is still reviewing the proposal.
“The safety, health, and protection of people, the environment and communities are top priorities for the natural gas and oil industry,” Stephanie Catarino Wissman, executive director of the state association, told Bloomberg Environment.
More Needed
But the updated policy doesn’t apply to oil and gas wells or other related oil and gas development permits, except for waste injection wells, Tracy Carluccio, deputy of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, told Bloomberg Environment.
A recent Food & Water Watch report found that communities of color were substantially more likely to live within three miles of a fossil fuel power plant than predominately white communities. The report found that people of color make up 39 percent of the population within three miles of existing and proposed plants, even though they only make up 22 percent of the overall state population.
Saleem Chapman of PennFuture, a state environmental group, said to make a real change, the Department of Environmental Protection needs to include environmental justice efforts in all its decision making, not just permit issues. And the effort needs to extend to other state agencies as well, he said.
“This is a significant step in the right direction,” he said, but “we need to integrate environmental justice across all decision making.”
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/residents-served-by-pa-environmental-justice-program-want-more

Return to headline | Return to top
Kids Blast Trump's Request for Trial Delay

Jul 23, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

A group of youth plaintiffs is urging the Supreme Court to allow an upcoming district court trial on the government's role in causing climate change to move forward.
The plaintiffs today formally objected to the Trump administration's request last week for a stay in the proceedings, arguing that the government had mischaracterized the status of the case and failed to point to "any credible claim of harm."
"Defendants have not made the showing necessary to justify the extraordinary relief of eliminating the district court's discretion in managing these proceedings in a fundamental rights case brought by the children," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
The 21 youth plaintiffs, now ranging from ages 11 to 22, initially brought the suit against the Obama administration, arguing that the government has violated its duty to protect the public trust by ensuring the safety of the atmosphere, water, seas, seashore and wildlife for future generations.
A high-profile trial is scheduled to begin on Oct. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
Both the district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have denied several attempts by the government to scuttle the case. Most recently, the 9th Circuit on Friday rejected the Trump administration's petition that it step in and halt the discovery process in the district court (Greenwire, July 20).
The youth plaintiffs argued that the July 20 opinion from the 9th Circuit affirms their position that the trial should move forward as scheduled.
As the justice assigned to the 9th Circuit, Justice Anthony Kennedy — who is retiring from the court effective July 31 — is handling the stay application. He will act alone or refer it to the full Supreme Court.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/23/stories/1060090081

Return to headline | Return to top
'Road Map' Lays out Paths for Deep Carbon Cuts in Midwest

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Jeffrey Tomich

There are multiple pathways to slash power-sector carbon emissions in the nation's midsection, with a couple of key factors, especially natural gas prices and policy, expected to dictate the cheapest route, according to a new study.
The study, a "road map" for decarbonization of the region by 2050, was overseen by power plant owners and environmental groups that joined the Midcontinent Power Sector Collaborative, an ad hoc group convened by the nonprofit Great Plains Institute.
While national and international studies have examined how decarbonization of the power sector can be achieved, the Midcontinent Power Sector Collaborative report released yesterday afternoon is the first analysis of a specific U.S. region, Franz Litz, a Great Plains Institute consultant, said in an interview.
The Great Plains Institute is hosting a daylong event today in Milwaukee to discuss the findings. The meeting will include a keynote address from consultant Judi Greenwald, former adviser to the secretary of Energy, and Cathy Woollums, a senior vice president for Berkshire Hathaway Energy.
The release of the study comes as the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's landmark climate regulation, remains mired in legal and political limbo. The uncertainty leaves power plant owners and states with a leading role in determining what generating fleets look like in the coming years.
Collaborative members include utilities such as DTE Energy, MidAmerican Energy Co. and Xcel Energy Inc.; electric cooperatives; independent power producers; and advocacy groups within the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region. State offices from Michigan and Minnesota participated as observers.
State utility commissions, their staffs and utility planners are the target audience for the road map as they're increasingly being asked to help approve or shape planning decisions that will guide long-lived investments. That's especially true in MISO, most of which consists of vertically integrated states.
The generating fleet in MISO has been moving away from coal and toward more gas and renewables in recent years. Still, the transition away from coal hasn't been as swift as some other regions. Coal still supplied almost half the electricity produced in the grid operator's footprint in 2016.
Decarbonization's biggest variable
The study said deep carbon reductions in the MISO region are achievable with existing technology and using "reasonable assumptions" about technological progress. The study looked only at generation resources and not deeper energy efficiency and distributed energy resources, which will be studied in subsequent phases.
Collaborative members defined decarbonization as an 80 to 95 percent reduction in 2005 power-sector carbon emissions by 2050.
But reaching the goal will require action by large utilities with operations in MISO. Many of them, including Xcel, DTE, Consumers Energy and Ameren Corp., are already laying out broad goals to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 80 percent by midcentury.
The goal of the road map was to determine how to meet those goals at the lowest cost under different scenarios, said Litz, who led development of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for the state of New York.
Pathways to the decarbonization goal under either scenario varied depending on key variables, such as renewable energy costs; and consumer and investor demands; aging infrastructure; and market changes, such as electric vehicle penetration and building electrification.
But there's perhaps no more important variable than natural gas prices in terms of dictating what the region's generating fleet looks like decades into the future.
"We found that [different gas price scenarios] created very different futures," Litz said. "In the model, we have a gas-dominated future where gas prices are low." If gas prices are higher, "we still see gas increasing, but not by as much."
Absent carbon regulations, gas prices will also help decide the fate of the region's nuclear fleet.
"If we have gas prices as low as a lot of people are projecting, our analysis suggested most of the nuclear plants in the region don't survive to 2030," Litz said.
In modeling that assumed carbon emissions limits, however, the plants continued to operate. "The model keeps [nuclear plants] around because it's part of the lowest-cost mix," he said. "If there were better options, it wouldn't keep them around."
Wind and solar energy, too, will continue to play a bigger role in the coming decades, defined in part by natural gas prices and carbon policy.
With 80 percent reduction built into the model, wind capacity more than doubles, and wind and solar combined make up 38 percent to 57 percent of the region's generation mix in 2050. Wind capacity triples if a 95 percent carbon reduction is assumed, and wind and solar make up as much as 64 percent of generating capacity.
Technology issues
Questions about integrating more intermittent renewables on MISO's grid aren't an issue and won't be until penetration reaches significantly higher levels.
"We're far from any sort of technical issue with renewables," said Litz.
"We could add a lot of renewables to the system before we start to have an issue. But when you start talking about 95 percent [decarbonization] by 2050, you've got to really take the dispatchability seriously."
Natural gas plants with technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions and store the CO2 underground or use it for enhanced oil recovery may also have a role in the region beyond 2030, especially if deeper CO2 cuts are pursued.
The economics of carbon capture and sequestration were based on NRG Energy Inc.'s Petra Nova project in Texas, a coal plant retrofitted with carbon capture technology. Emissions from the plant are pumped for enhanced oil recovery.
The analysis also accounts for passage of federal tax incentives for carbon capture earlier this year. It also assumes CO2 capture rates of 79 percent.
The role for CCS grows the deeper the emissions reductions, he said.
"A plant that has CCS still has emissions, and if you get out to 2050 and you're still using a gas plant, you're eating up a very small budget that you have for emissions."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/24/stories/1060090105

Return to headline | Return to top
The Trump Administration Decides That the Air You’re Breathing Is Way Too Clean

Jul 23, 2018 | Washington Post

By Paul Waldman

Let it never be said that the Trump administration lacks ambition or creativity. Fresh off announcingits intention to gut the Endangered Species Act, it now wants to move aggressively to make the air Americans breathe not so annoyingly clean, no matter what it takes. Bloomberg News reports:
The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions — including its mandate for electric car sales — in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.
The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.
The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.
As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers, according to three people familiar with the plan.
In case it isn’t clear, under current rules California is allowed to impose stricter pollution controls than what the federal government requires; under this proposal, the state wouldn’t be allowed to go any further than the federal government does. Interestingly, the car companies themselves support keeping the Obama-era emissions targets, in part because they don’t want to deal with the uncertainty of years of lawsuits; they’d rather just know what they’re required to do and get on with it.
So how many Republicans who profess their commitment to “state’s rights,” the ability of each state to make their own laws and chart their own path whenever possible, will rise up to announce their vehement opposition to this proposal on the basis of their unwavering commitment to the 10th Amendment? Maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong, but I’m guessing … zero.
That’s because this supposed commitment is basically a sham and always had been. Just like Democrats, Republicans are happy for states to have power when the states are doing things they like, and happy for the federal government to have power when it’s doing things they like. If a state wants to force transgender people to use the wrong bathroom, well that’s just what the framers intended. But regulating carbon emissions? No dice.
This works further down as well. States that are run by Republicans but include liberal cities have passed a broad array of “preemption” laws, which forbid municipalities from making their own rules on things such as guns, increasing the minimum wage and gay rights. “Local control” is good, unless the locality does things we disagree with.
So that’s part of what’s going on here. The other part is that the Trump administration is being unusually aggressive in checking items off the right-wing wish list, perhaps even more than a different Republican president would have been. That may seem ironic given how much suspicion conservatives had about whether Trump would be committed to their ideological cause, but there’s a good reason why it’s happening.The Plum Line OpinionThe Trump administration decides that the air you’re breathing is way too clean
(David McNew/Getty Images)By Paul WaldmanJuly 23 at 4:20 PMEmail the author
Let it never be said that the Trump administration lacks ambition or creativity. Fresh off announcingits intention to gut the Endangered Species Act, it now wants to move aggressively to make the air Americans breathe not so annoyingly clean, no matter what it takes. Bloomberg News reports:
The Trump administration will seek to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions — including its mandate for electric car sales — in a proposed revision of Obama-era standards, according to three people familiar with the plan.
The proposal, expected to be released this week, amounts to a frontal assault on one of former President Barack Obama’s signature regulatory programs to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. It also sets up a high-stakes battle over California’s unique ability to combat air pollution and, if finalized, is sure to set off a protracted courtroom battle.
The proposed revamp would also put the brakes on federal rules to boost fuel efficiency into the next decade, said the people, who asked to not be identified discussing the proposals before they are public. Instead it will cap federal fuel economy requirements at the 2020 level, which under federal law must be at least a 35-mile-per-gallon fleet average, rather than letting them rise to roughly 50 mpg by 2025 as envisioned in the plan left behind by Obama, according to the people.
As part of the effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose revoking the Clean Air Act waiver granted to California that has allowed the state to regulate carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes and force carmakers to sell electric vehicles in the state in higher numbers, according to three people familiar with the plan.
In case it isn’t clear, under current rules California is allowed to impose stricter pollution controls than what the federal government requires; under this proposal, the state wouldn’t be allowed to go any further than the federal government does. Interestingly, the car companies themselves support keeping the Obama-era emissions targets, in part because they don’t want to deal with the uncertainty of years of lawsuits; they’d rather just know what they’re required to do and get on with it.
So how many Republicans who profess their commitment to “state’s rights,” the ability of each state to make their own laws and chart their own path whenever possible, will rise up to announce their vehement opposition to this proposal on the basis of their unwavering commitment to the 10th Amendment? Maybe I’ll turn out to be wrong, but I’m guessing … zero.
That’s because this supposed commitment is basically a sham and always had been. Just like Democrats, Republicans are happy for states to have power when the states are doing things they like, and happy for the federal government to have power when it’s doing things they like. If a state wants to force transgender people to use the wrong bathroom, well that’s just what the framers intended. But regulating carbon emissions? No dice.
This works further down as well. States that are run by Republicans but include liberal cities have passed a broad array of “preemption” laws, which forbid municipalities from making their own rules on things such as guns, increasing the minimum wage and gay rights. “Local control” is good, unless the locality does things we disagree with.
So that’s part of what’s going on here. The other part is that the Trump administration is being unusually aggressive in checking items off the right-wing wish list, perhaps even more than a different Republican president would have been. That may seem ironic given how much suspicion conservatives had about whether Trump would be committed to their ideological cause, but there’s a good reason why it’s happening.
As I’ve argued before, one of the effects of having a president who neither knows nor cares about policy, and who thinks that his personal magnetism is the solution to any political problem, is that in many areas the ideologues are given free rein to indulge their most lurid fantasies. In a different Republican administration, the president might not approve something like this, not necessarily because he wouldn’t be as committed to despoiling the air and water as anyone else, but because he’d know that environmental issues play quite well for Democrats. While he’d certainly be deregulating and working for the interests of corporations, it would be kept within certain limits so as to be able to claim that he’s achieving balance between the concerns of business and the concerns of the environment. That way you achieve much of your ideological goals while limiting the political risk.
But in the Trump administration, those considerations don’t operate in the same way. Trump himself doesn’t care, and the people he has installed at agencies such as the EPA are unapologetic about their desire to dismantle every environmental protection on the books. They know by now that as long as they don’t embarrass the president with misbehavior, he’ll let them go as far as they want on policy.
So they are going to use every minute of their time in power, even if it’s only another two and half years. Who knows what they’ll be able to accomplish, and how much damage they’ll be able to do.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/23/the-trump-administration-decides-that-the-air-youre-breathing-is-way-too-clean/?utm_term=.60f656732885

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested