Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/15/2018
-
Ousted EPA Children's Health Official Says She Was Frozen out
Oct 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA's top children's health official, who was abruptly removed from her job at the end of September, told"CBS This Morning" that she was given no reason for why she was put on administrative leave, but said that her office's push for special considerations... -
NAS Preparing for New DOD Projects on TCE, Lead
Oct 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is preparing to begin two new projects funded by the Defense Department (DOD) on the human health risks of the common solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) and lead, chemicals for which EPA has either created a controversial risk assessment... -
EU Publishes 12th ATP to CLP
Oct 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published amendments to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP). -
Canada Consumer Products Enforcement Exercise Finds Mixed Results
Oct 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
A compliance checking exercise into consumer products in Canada has produced mixed results when it comes to testing for the presence of restricted substances. -
Life-Sized Plastic Whale Calls Attention to Pollution
Oct 15, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Artists have created an 82-foot-long blue whale made from discarded plastic that is now on display near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to raise awareness about ocean pollution. -
Trump Administration Could Use Military Bases to Export Coal, Gas
Oct 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is considering using military bases to accommodate export facilities for coal or natural gas, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has told The Associated Press. -
Intense Fight over Colorado Oil and Gas Setbacks Could End with National Precedent
Oct 15, 2018 | Washington Post
By Jennifer Oldham
A years-long fight over how close oil and gas drilling can safely be to places where people live and work is coming to a head with an unprecedented November ballot measure that would ban such operations within at least half a mile of homes, schools, businesses and waterways. -
North Dakota Oil, Gas Production Continues Record-Breaking Pace
Oct 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota's Bakken Shale set back-to-back records for oil and natural gas production in August, the most recent month for which there are complete statistics, state regulators said Friday. -
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Just Scrapped Two Expert Panels Tasked with Evaluating Air Pollution
Oct 15, 2018 | Popular Science
By Jennifer Lu
When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last Wednesday that a seven-member advisory board would lead a review of national standards that safeguard the air we breathe, Christopher Frey wondered what that meant for the panel of 26 experts... -
Business Groups Urge Justices to Intercede in Exxon Case
Oct 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Two of the most powerful business lobbies in Washington are pressing the Supreme Court to take up Exxon Mobil Corp.'s fight against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D). -
Trump Administration Doubles Down on Climate Skepticism
Oct 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Trump administration is doubling down on its questioning of whether climate change is man-made and its belief that scientists who think otherwise may have a political agenda. -
As Dems Slam Trump's Comments, Most Republicans Shrug
Oct 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Dems slam Trump's comments, most Republicans shrug Manuel
Democrats, environmental groups and climate scientists are slamming President Trump's weekend comments on climate change, but Republicans continue to appear largely unmoved by the latest international report on global warming. -
‘I Don’t Know That It’s Man-Made,’ Trump Says of Climate Change. It Is.
Oct 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
President Trump now denies denying climate change. In an interview on Sunday with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Mr. Trump backed off his long-held claim that global warming is a hoax. But he also made several new assertions unsupported by science. -
DOJ Plans To Renew Call For Supreme Court To Halt Youth Climate Case
Oct 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning to renew its call for the Supreme Court to halt a novel climate change case brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, just weeks before the long-pending and high-profile matter is scheduled to go to trail in a federal district court in Oregon.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Ousted EPA Children's Health Official Says She Was Frozen out
Oct 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA's top children's health official, who was abruptly removed from her job at the end of September, told"CBS This Morning" that she was given no reason for why she was put on administrative leave, but said that her office's push for special considerations in EPA regulations for children "is not welcome."
Ruth Etzel, the pediatrician who headed the Office of Children's Health Protection, said that when the Trump administration took over in January 2017, her monthly meetings to advise the EPA administrator on children's health issues were quickly halted. She has had "not one" one-on-one meeting with either former Administrator Scott Pruitt or now acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
EPA has said that Etzel's removal is a "personnel matter" and that she was placed on leave while the agency investigates allegations about her leadership of the office. Agency leaders have said the move signals no change to its focus on children's health, and Wheeler last week issued a memo reiterating the agency's commitment to the subject.
In the interview, Etzel also expressed skepticism about the administration's strategy to protect children from lead poisoning. Pruitt launched the cross-agency effort with much fanfare earlier this year, but it has since stalled.
"My sense is that the government has absolutely no intention of taking any action toward seriously changing lead in children's environments," Etzel said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
NAS Preparing for New DOD Projects on TCE, Lead
Oct 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is preparing to begin two new projects funded by the Defense Department (DOD) on the human health risks of the common solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) and lead, chemicals for which EPA has either created a controversial risk assessment or for which it has struggled to develop risk estimates.
NAS announced last week that it is seeking nominations for experts to serve on two committees that will undertake these two new projects. NAS has asked for submissions by Oct. 19.
The announcement explains that one committee will be tasked with reviewing the “scientific and technical basis of DOD's proposed approach to developing an occupational exposure level (OEL) and cancer slope factor,” or potency estimate for TCE “for settings in which vapor intrusion is the pathway of exposure.”
EPA's efforts to address this chemical and this pathway have been wildly controversial, with industry and agencies like DOD and NASA critical of EPA's approach to assessing the chemical's risks. EPA's 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of the chemical remains under attack for its finding that the chemical can cause fetal cardiac malformations. The Trump EPA has yet to advance restrictions on TCE use proposed by the Obama EPA based on the assessment.
The agency's TCE vapor intrusion risk management guidance, using that risk estimate, required increased sampling for and mitigation of TCE in contaminated soil or groundwater that migrates into indoor air. EPA last summer pushed back on industry efforts to suspend the Obama-era guide.
NAS adds that “Important elements of the review will be the data selection process, evidence synthesis, dose-response assessments, the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models, and other factors associated with calculating an OEL.”
For the second project, NAS presents a similar summary for a review of DOD's proposed OEL for lead exposure. The notice explains that the new NAS committee “will review the scientific and technical basis of the [OEL] for airborne lead developed by [DOD]. Specifically, the committee will evaluate whether the physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model used to derive airborne concentrations from blood lead levels was appropriate. Consideration will be given to whether the appropriate model was chosen, whether modifications to the model were appropriately justified, and whether the assumptions in and inputs to the model were reasonable.”
EPA and Health and Human Services Department risk levels for lead have long been based on the potent neurotoxicant's effect on children -- not adults. Following its 2008 rule on safe work practices for those performing building maintenance in homes and child care facilities that may contain lead, EPA has tried -- under a court-ordered deadline -- to craft a similar rule for public and commercial buildings.
Such a rule, however, would have to be based on lead's risk to adult health, resulting in the need for a different risk analysis. A recent study linking low-level lead exposure with increased risk of adult deaths from cardiovascular disease could bolster EPA's long-running efforts to complete its analysis. The agency told a federal judge last March that it still does not know when its assessment will be complete, after missing a March 2017 deadline.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nas-preparing-new-dod-projects-tce-lead
-
Oct 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published amendments to the Regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).
This is the 12th adaptation to technical and scientific progress (ATP). It includes 18 updated and 16 new entries to the Annex VI harmonised classification list.
Substances added to the list include the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MIT), which has been assigned a 15ppm specific concentration limit. This is significantly lower than the 0.1% concentration limit used for general category 1A skin sensitisers.
The paint and cleaning products industry has voiced concern that the classification, and an expected restriction under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR) would push MIT off the market as the substance is no longer effective at 15ppm concentration.
The 12th ATP was published in the EU Official Journal on 4 October. It will enter into force 20 days after publication and the changes will apply from 1 May 2020.
The 11th ATP was published in May and added the chemical names of substances subject to harmonised classification and labelling listed in Table 3 of Annex VI CLP in all languages.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71022/eu-publishes-12th-atp-to-clp
-
Canada Consumer Products Enforcement Exercise Finds Mixed Results
Oct 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
A compliance checking exercise into consumer products in Canada has produced mixed results when it comes to testing for the presence of restricted substances.
Health Canada checked six types of items under its Consumer Product Safety Programme (CPSP). Four of these involved verifying chemical content:
· methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI) in cosmetics – of 14 products tested, six leave-on products were out of compliance for using one or both of the chemicals in excess of the legal limit. The sale of all was stopped, except for one case of voluntary recall;
· lead and cadmium in glazed ceramics and glassware – of five samples assessed, all were in compliance, so no corrective actions have been recommended;
· restricted substances in fragrances – of 206 fragrances tested, only two were found to have compliance issues: one due to dihydrocoumarin, and one due to hydroquinone and p-hydroxyanisole. The sale of both products was stopped; and
· phthalates in vinyl used in toys – of 27 toy products tested, seven were found to not contain vinyl at all. Of the remaining 20, 17 were in compliance, and three resulted in voluntary recalls.
Before starting the compliance project, the CPSP carried out a market survey of the ceramics, cosmetics, and toy companies in Canada. Targets were then selected for sampling and testing by Health Canada inspectors.
The products were tested over the course of fiscal year 2017-2018, with the exception of the MCI and MI tests, which were carried out in 2016-2017.
The CPSP enforces the country’s Consumer Product Safety Act (CCPSA) and the Food and Drugs Act, which includes the country's cosmetics regulations. Its work includes verifying industry compliance with those regulations. The consequences for non-compliance vary on a case-by-case basis.
Separately, Health Canada has revised its Mandatory Incident Reporting guide, for those who sell, import, or manufacture consumer products. There are no significant changes; most revisions are for more detail or for clarity.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70960/canada-consumer-products-enforcement-exercise-finds-mixed-results
-
Life-Sized Plastic Whale Calls Attention to Pollution
Oct 15, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
Artists have created an 82-foot-long blue whale made from discarded plastic that is now on display near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to raise awareness about ocean pollution.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium said Friday that a blue whale can weigh 300,000 pounds — about the amount of plastic scientists say enters the ocean every nine minutes.
A 2015 study by Jenna Jambeck, an environmental engineer at the University of Georgia, found 9 million tons of plastic waste enters the ocean annually.
The sculpture, created from plastic water bottles, lids and bags by artists Joel Dean Stockdill and Yustina Salnikova, was publicly unveiled Saturday.
It is located in Crissy Field, the heart of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
It is sponsored by the aquarium in partnership with the National Park Service and the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/15/stories/1060102535
-
Trump Administration Could Use Military Bases to Export Coal, Gas
Oct 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is considering using military bases to accommodate export facilities for coal or natural gas, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has told The Associated Press.
Zinke said the strategy is being considered as a way to thwart opposition by California, Oregon and Washington leaders to allowing export terminals in their states to sell coal or gas to Asia.
“I respect the state of Washington and Oregon and California,” Zinke told AP. “But also, it’s in our interest for national security and our allies to make sure that they have access to affordable energy commodities.”
Zinke said that may involve using “some of our naval facilities, some of our federal facilities on the West Coast.”
In his AP interview, Zinke only mentioned one possible facility for natural gas exports: the Adak Naval Air Facility in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, which closed in 1997.
Exports are a key piece of President Trump’s agenda for “energy dominance,” which includes the United States becoming a world power in energy markets.
Gas exports have grown dramatically in recent years along with the large increase in production, though only two large-scale export facilities are currently operating, and neither is on the West Coast. Coal exports have held relatively steady in recent years as domestic demand for the fuel has dropped.
It is not the only move the administration is reportedly making to use the military to help its energy agenda. They are also working on a plan to keep uneconomical coal and nuclear power plants open, citing national security as the justification.
Interior spokeswoman Faith Vander Voort said Zinke is trying to keep options open for ways to boost exports.
“The president and secretary are committed to the men and women of coal country, and it should come as no surprise that Secretary Zinke has put a number of options on the table to revitalize these communities and achieve American Energy Dominance,” she said in a statement.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) told AP she’s talked about the military base idea with Zinke and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
“That might be, for example, retired military facilities or other places where we would be able to use those for exports — frankly, to get around some of the unreasonable obstacles that have been thrown up,” she said.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) also told the AP that using the bases is a possible strategy for exports.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/411439-trump-admin-could-use-military-bases-to-export-coal-gas
-
Intense Fight over Colorado Oil and Gas Setbacks Could End with National Precedent
Oct 15, 2018 | Washington Post
By Jennifer Oldham
A years-long fight over how close oil and gas drilling can safely be to places where people live and work is coming to a head with an unprecedented November ballot measure that would ban such operations within at least half a mile of homes, schools, businesses and waterways.
Proposition 112 is pitting homeowners against Fortune 500 companies and even neighbor against neighbor. The stakes involved are immense in a state that is the nation’s seventh-largest oil producer and fifth-biggest supplier of natural gas.
Opponents say increased setbacks would put tens of thousands of people out of work, plunge Coloradointo a recession and jeopardize U.S. energy independence. An industry-backed political action committee, Protect Colorado, collected about $33 million through Sept. 26 to defeat the initiative. That sum, which dwarfed the amount the other side raised, has made Proposition 112 one of the most expensive referendums in state history.
Proponents counter that industrial operations pollute the air and threaten health and safety. Colorado Rising, the committee leading the effort, has highlighted more than a dozen fires, leaks and explosions since 2017. Several have been deadly, and the loss of life is one likely reason Proposition 112 supporters succeeded this time in getting enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.
As the Nov. 6 midterm election nears, both sides are going door to door and holding rallies, especially in the most populous counties near Denver. Most Coloradoans vote by mail, and they’ll start receiving their ballots this week.
According to Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, the state is considered “a bellwether.” If Proposition 112 were to pass, she said, “we are certain we would see it pop up in a couple years in other oil-and-gas-producing states.”
The showdown comes as applications to drill in the shadow of the Rockies tripled in the past year and oil production hit record highs. The nation’s fourth-largest oil field based on proved reserves lies beneath the Front Range here, ensuring that more rigs will go up in metropolitan areas dealing with historic growth.
Current law requires wells to be set back 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet from schools. The referendum would push that to 2,500 feet and allow local governments to increase it even farther.
In neighborhoods decked out for Halloween, parents armed with cellphone pictures of playground slides framed by oil and gas equipment have passed out fliers and yard signs urging residents to approve greater setbacks.
“This isn’t something that happened overnight,” said Heidi Henkel, a mother who lives in Broomfield, about half an hour north of Denver, and spends 40 hours a week campaigning around the state. “People have been fighting this for at least seven years — this is about science versus greed.”
Fifteen miles to the southeast, oil and gas workers in the Denver suburb of Commerce City downed tacos, quesadillas and margaritas at a recent rally sponsored by business groups encouraging employees to help defeat the initiative.
“I’m a single dad with three kids, and the support I’ve been able to give them comes from working in oil and gas,” said Anthony Pullol, an equipment operator with Liberty Oilfield Services. “There’s a lack of knowledge about what precautions we take for the environment versus other states.”
Outgoing Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) frequently touts what he calls the toughest restrictions in the nation on methane emissions, disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and groundwater monitoring. The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission enacted numerous rules regulating energy production in the past decade.
Each side in the Proposition 112 debate says it has the backing of science. Residents point to peer-reviewed research showing health risks from toxic oil and gas emissions such as cancer, respiratory problems and congenital birth defects. Energy groups cite a Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment study of 10,000 air samples in oil and gas areas that found “all measured air concentrations were below short- and-long-term safe levels of exposure for non-cancer health effects.”
The state’s gubernatorial candidates, Rep. Jared Polis (D) and State Treasurer Walker Stapleton (R), oppose the ballot measure because they say it would effectively ban drilling. Regulators concluded that it would put 85 percent of state- and privately owned land off limits to energy exploration. Given the huge role oil and gas play here — a report by the American Petroleum Institute found that the industries contribute $31.4 billion a year to Colorado’s economy and $1.2 billion in public revenue — many officials fear the budgetary repercussions.
Municipalities and school districts stand to lose millions of dollars. Weld County, just north of Denver, produces 91 percent of the state’s oil and received $73 million in tax distributions between 2008 and 2016, state records show.
If Proposition 112 passes, taxpayers would be forced to pay more for capital improvement bonds funding new fire stations and equipment, said Don Warden, the county’s finance director. Energy companies pay most of these costs now.
Yet supporters of the measure note that the state is “currently giving more money to the industry than it is receiving in severance tax money” because of lower oil and gas prices and a 2016 Colorado Supreme Court ruling that required the state to issue about $120 million in refunds to energy companies.
The national implications of the initiative became clear in August when proponents turned in the petition signatures to place it on the ballot. Energy stocks plunged, wiping out almost $3 billion in market value for five companies plumbing Colorado’s fossil fuels.
The state has about 55,000 active wells today, almost double the number in 2007. That’s really when the acrimonious debate began, as fracking unlocked energy reserves located miles below the surface and wells moved closer to cities hugging the eastern foothills. Residents responded by voting for legislation that placed moratoriums or bans on such development.
In 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court threw out measures in the cities of Fort Collins and Longmont because state regulations preempted them. Undeterred, residents quickly sought to place an initiative on the ballot that mirrored Proposition 112. They were unable to collect enough signatures.
The court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on another energy-related lawsuit. The Martinez case, as it is known, will determine whether state regulators must put public health and the environment first when permitting oil and gas operations.
The dangers weigh heavy on the minds of residents in Broomfield, where Extraction Oil & Gas is readying to frack at least 70 wells on the edge of recently built suburbs. Abandoned wells lurk beneath communities here, including one where Laurie Anderson lives with her husband.
“Soon there will be 19 wells that I will be able to see from my home,” she said, gesturing to a vacant lot covered with yellowing prairie grass located just 500 feet from her neighborhood. “The worry about health and safety is leading to stress and anxiety and lots of sleepless nights.”
Others weigh different considerations. Energy groups emphasize that more than three-quarters of the up to 43,000 Coloradans who they say could lose their jobs in the first year of Proposition 112 include teachers, hotel and restaurant employees, and truck drivers.
“I never thought I would be on TV,” said Gary Arnold, a business manager for Pipefitters Local Union 208, who appeared in a recent Protect Colorado ad during a Denver Broncos football game. “I don’t want people to forget the faces of industry and how many blue-collar workers this would affect.”
Many Coloradoans also own mineral rights that are separate from surface land ownership. Mineral owners say Proposition 112 puts at risk royalties they rely on to pay medical expenses and other necessities. They say that if the initiative passes, taxpayers should be required to reimburse them.
“There are plenty of attorneys who are waiting to see how this all turns out,” said Neil Ray, president of the Colorado Alliance of Mineral and Royalty Owners. “If the state does enact this, and the state legislature doesn’t do something to repeal or amend it, get ready for big lawsuits.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/intense-fight-over-colorado-oil-and-gas-setbacks-could-end-with-national-precedent/2018/10/15/efe6fd7a-cb5f-11e8-920f-dd52e1ae4570_story.html?utm_term=.0909c79b560f
-
North Dakota Oil, Gas Production Continues Record-Breaking Pace
Oct 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota's Bakken Shale set back-to-back records for oil and natural gas production in August, the most recent month for which there are complete statistics, state regulators said Friday.
"There is a lot of good news for North Dakota in the latest numbers, and weather was near perfect in August with no heavy winds or rain," said state Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms.
Monthly oil production in August topped 40 million bbl (1.29 million b/d), a 22,000 b/d increase month/month, compared to 39.3 million bbl (1.26 million b/d) in July. Natural gas production for August rose in tandem with oil at about 1.8%, reaching 75.5 Bcf (2.43 Bcf/d), compared to 74.2 Bcf (2.39 Bcf/d) in July.
While reaching a new high of 15,103 producing wells in August, the state topped the 40 million bbl and 75 Bcf thresholds for the first time, said Helms, who noted that the Bakken rig count on Friday reached 67 and operators are expecting that number to hit 70 by the end of the year.
The best of North Dakota's latest "good news," according to Helms, is the fact that there are now 45 crews conducting hydraulic fracturing (fracking). "Rig counts historically are used as indicators of production, but the number of frack crews is an even better indicator.”
Among all the record-setting statistics, he said August numbers on gas flaring remained depressed, particularly on Fort Berthold reservation lands. The statewide gas capture rate was 82% (limited to the Bakken, 83%), while Fort Berthold was 73%.
Driving the Native American reservation's lower number is the fact that it accounted for two-thirds of the oil production increase in August (17,000 b/d of the 22,000 b/d overall increase).
"Flaring is going to be an issue continuously for the next couple of years," said Helms, noting that the state Industrial Commission will take up the issue at its meeting later this month (Oct. 25) in anticipation of the November goal of 88% not being achieved this year.
Helms said the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) flaring and venting rules issued last month giving states and tribes control should help Fort Berthold. "It is a great revision to the rule, and I think it is going to be very helpful.”
Another piece of "good news” is the opening of a 200 MMcf/d addition to the Oasis Petroleum Corp. midstream unit's Wild Basin plant. It will be the only significant addition to processing capacity in the Bakken until 2Q2019. "So we go into winter as we stand today, and that is going to create a real tug-of-war among gas capture, drilling rig counts and well completions." Helms said North Dakota's gas capture requirements set four years ago were what drove the investment by Oasis, motivating the exploration and production company to get into the midstream business.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116115-north-dakota-oil-gas-production-continues-record-breaking-pace
-
(ACC Mentioned) The EPA Just Scrapped Two Expert Panels Tasked with Evaluating Air Pollution
Oct 15, 2018 | Popular Science
By Jennifer Lu
When the Environmental Protection Agency announced last Wednesday that a seven-member advisory board would lead a review of national standards that safeguard the air we breathe, Christopher Frey wondered what that meant for the panel of 26 experts already selected by the agency in 2016 to do the job.
It wasn't until the next day that Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University and a consultant on the 26-person panel, received two forwarded emails from the EPA informing him that his expertise was no longer needed. The original panel created to study fine particulate matter—microscopic specks of dirt, soot, smoke, and other tiny pollutants—had been disbanded. The EPA also scrapped plans to assemble a similarly-sized expert group to review ozone, more commonly known as smog, a pollutant that constricts the airways and exacerbates respiratory conditions including asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.
Prior to the emails, the EPA had given no indication that it was getting rid of the review panels, Frey says. "It was done secretly and announced as a fait accompli."
Instead, both national air quality standards will be reviewed by a pulmonary physician, five representatives from local, state, and federal environmental agencies (including an aquatic ecology and invasive species expert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and a consultant whose clients have included the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, and tobacco company Philip Morris International. These seven individuals, many of whom were picked by Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to independently advise the EPA on air issues, make up the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, or CASAC.
"A seven-member panel just doesn't have the expertise that these review panels have," says former CASAC chair Ana Diez Roux, a dean and professor of epidemiology at Drexel University. Roux was originally supposed to chair the panel but was rotated off after her second term leading CASAC ended last year. "Having these panels of experts is how we as a society can ensure that we are objectively evaluating the scientific evidence and using it to establish standards necessary to protect public health."
Furthermore, cutting back on science opens the process up to influences from other interests that may not see public welfare as their first priority, Roux says.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must review national air quality standards for six key pollutants, including particulate matter and ozone, every five years, though the process often takes longer. Standards for fine particulate pollution and ozone were last set in 2012 and 2015, respectively, with industry groups objecting that the updated standards for both pollutants were too stringent and environmental groups arguing the opposite.
Normally, each review is conducted in three stages to assess the science, risk and exposure, and policy implications for each air pollutant. These assessments are then reviewed by an independent panel of experts made up of CASAC members and an array of scientists selected for their area of expertise, who send their recommendations back to EPA. The goal is to consider whether the standard adequately protects public health or needs revision based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence.
Last year, ousted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt banned scientists who received EPA research grants from serving on any science advisory board, a move that favors regulatory and industry scientists over academic researchers.
In April, Pruitt unveiled a proposed rule to prevent the agency from considering studies that use "secret science," including epidemiological studies based on private personal health data. Perhaps not coincidentally, the crusade for “transparency” in science originated from industry backlash to a 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study (whose author was on the disbanded particulate matter review panel) and a 1995 American Cancer Society study. Both studies found statistically significant associations between fine particle pollution and increased death rates, which compelled the EPA to start regulating fine particulate matter as an air pollutant in 1997.
In May, Pruitt also ordered the agency to consider the economic costs of setting air quality standards and to "seek efficiencies" by potentially combining the science, risk and exposure, and policy assessments into a single review, further stoking fears that the agency would sideline science in its decision-making process.
Since the EPA under Wheeler says it will release a distinct science assessment for particulate matter in the next two weeks, all eyes are watching to see which scientific studies make the cut.
Last year, a landmark New England Journal of Medicine study analyzing Medicare data from almost 61 million individuals found a strong relationship between shortened life expectancy and exposure to fine particle pollution—even at levels below the current annual standard of 12 µg/m3. This was especially true for men, minorities, and people with lower incomes.
"It's very notable because of its sample size. The findings are statistically significant. And it would meet the requirements of the transparency rule," Frey says. "I don't want to prejudge too much because it needs to be looked at in detail, but it's an example of a study that's likely to be significant."
That's why it's so important to have a multi-disciplinary panel of experts with in-depth knowledge of different areas including air quality monitoring techniques, modeling, human exposure pathways, toxicology, epidemiology, medicine, statistics and risk assessment, Frey says. "To have the same seven people reviewing two of arguably the most important air quality standards on a shortened schedule—when there's a lot of new science—is just not credible."
https://www.popsci.com/epa-clean-air-science-committee-disbanded
-
Business Groups Urge Justices to Intercede in Exxon Case
Oct 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
Two of the most powerful business lobbies in Washington are pressing the Supreme Court to take up Exxon Mobil Corp.'s fight against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D).
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, which both represent heavy industry and manufacturing companies, argue that Healey has no jurisdiction over the company.
Exxon petitioned the high court last month to review a ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which in April ordered the oil giant to turn over climate change documents to Healey (E&E News PM, Sept. 10).
The company has not supplied the files in question, according to the attorney general, who requested them in the spring of 2016.
In its petition to the top court, Exxon said the Massachusetts court had "compelled compliance with sweeping investigatory requests" about its climate change knowledge and challenged the court's jurisdiction.
In a friend-of-the-court brief last week, the U.S. Chamber and NAM sided with Exxon.
"There are no offsetting benefits to permitting this serious erosion of federalism," the trade groups said in their brief.
Healey's document request, which demands Exxon turn over 40 years' worth of records, is so burdensome it "rivals all but the largest lawsuits," they said.
A spokeswoman for the attorney general declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of the matter. An Exxon spokesman did not return requests for comment.
The oil giant's choice to urge the Supreme Court to intercede marks the latest escalation in its legal battle against Healey. Conservative business groups such as the U.S. Chamber and NAM have sharply criticized the Massachusetts climate investigation and lawsuits in which plaintiffs demand money from oil companies to pay for climate-related damages.
Exxon sued Healey shortly after the attorney general announced in March 2016 that her office would investigate the company over potentially misleading the public about its climate change knowledge.
The attorney general won court rulings in Massachusetts in part by arguing that the 300-plus Exxon- and Mobil-branded gasoline and service stations in the state represent a strong commercial and legal connection over which she has jurisdiction.
In January 2017, Judge Heidi Brieger of the Massachusetts Superior Court said it was reasonable for Exxon to be in court in the state.
"[Because] Exxon delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in all states, including Massachusetts, it is not overly burdened by being called into court in Massachusetts," Brieger wrote.
The Massachusetts high court agreed. But Exxon said in its U.S. Supreme Court petition that its gas stations were not a strong enough legal connection to establish jurisdiction because they were run by third-party franchisees, not the company directly.
The network of stations was "not connected to the subject matter under investigation regarding climate change," Exxon attorneys said.
Defense attorney advocacy group DRI also took issue with Healey's service-station argument in an amicus brief last week.
Probes like Healey's "cast a pall over the perceived long-term stability" of the target company, such as Exxon, in the eyes of consumers, DRI said.
In a separate federal lawsuit between Exxon and the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, which has its own climate probe of the company, Massachusetts said its probe into the company's "possible fraud serves obvious state interests."
"The greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels are driving and intensifying unprecedented storms, floods, sea level rise, forest fires, and droughts across the country," the state said in court papers. "These impacts endanger our residents and Exxon's business model and may cost billions of dollars to address."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/10/15/stories/1060102507
-
Trump Administration Doubles Down on Climate Skepticism
Oct 15, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Trump administration is doubling down on its questioning of whether climate change is man-made and its belief that scientists who think otherwise may have a political agenda.
President Trump in an interview with "60 Minutes" that aired late Sunday said he believes “something” is happening with global warming, but added that he thinks it’s likely the trend will revert or “go back.”
“I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's man-made,” Trump said.
Trump also said he didn’t believe that Hurricane Michael -- which hit Florida's gulf coast as a Category 4 last week -- was linked to climate change, despite scientists connecting warming waters to stronger storms.
“I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we're talkin' about over a millions of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” Trump said.
Trump has gone back and forth over the course of his public career on the issue of climate change. But since running for president in 2016, has stuck to the position that it's not clear humans are responsible for rising global temperatures.
Asked why he didn’t believe the opinions of scientists, many of whom work for the federal government at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the president said on "60 Minutes" that he was skeptical of scientific findings.
“You'd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda,” Trump said.
Speaking on a series of shows earlier Sunday, Trump's National Economic Council director, Larry Kudlow, echoed similar sentiments that the cause of climate change is not known.
“I’m not denying any climate change issues,” Kudlow told ABC's "This Week." “I’m just saying do we know precisely, and I mean worth modeling, how much of it is man-made, how much of it is solar, how much of it is oceanic, how much of it is rainforest and other issues. I think we’re still exploring all of that."
Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a dire report that found the world needs to decrease carbon emissions by 45 percent by the year 2030 to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Without dramatic emissions cuts, the world faces significant sea-level rise, water shortages, coral reef die-offs and loss of habitat range for species by 2030, the report forecast.
Scientists are nearly unanimous in their belief that humans largely contribute to greenhouse gas emissions -- the main source of climate change
Kudlow, however, said he disagreed with the report's warnings and didn’t feel it is necessary to enact swift action.
“I don’t think we should panic," the White House economic adviser said. "I don’t think there’s an imminent disaster coming, but I think we should look at this in a level-headed and analytic way."
Kudlow also called the IPCC report "too difficult."
"Personally, I think the U.N. study...is...way, way too difficult. I won’t say it’s a scare tactic, but I think they overestimate."
Responding to the IPCC report, the Environmental Protection Agency last week issued a statement that said the findings were only the “responsibility of its authors.”
“In accordance with IPCC procedures, the report and its contents remain the responsibility of its authors. Governments do not formally endorse specific findings presented by the authors,” an EPA spokesperson said.
The report was commissioned at the behest of the countries involved in the Paris Climate accords. President Trump announced last year that he would be pulling the U.S. out of the landmark agreement.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/411444-trump-administration-doubles-down-on-climate-skepticism
-
As Dems Slam Trump's Comments, Most Republicans Shrug
Oct 15, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Dems slam Trump's comments, most Republicans shrug Manuel
Democrats, environmental groups and climate scientists are slamming President Trump's weekend comments on climate change, but Republicans continue to appear largely unmoved by the latest international report on global warming.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the world needs to do more against carbon emissions or face painful consequences (Climatewire, Oct. 9).
President Trump over the weekend walked back previous comments about global warming being a hoax, but he said the IPCC report is not pushing him to do more on the issue (Climatewire, Oct. 15).
"I think there's probably a difference [in climate]. But I don't know that it's man-made," the president said during a CBS News interview. "I will say this. I don't want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't want to lose millions and millions of jobs."
Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, whose state is recovering from a direct hit from Hurricane Michael, appeared to echo some of Trump's views. Scientists believe climate change will make hurricanes stronger and more frequent.
"Look, scientists are saying that humanity and its behavior is contributing toward [climate change]. I can't tell you what percentage of that is human activity. And I think many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations," Rubio said on CNN's "State of the Union."
"We're going to have to do something about the impact that it's having on low-level coastal areas, and that means mitigation — hardening, lifting, how we manage water," he said. "We're all over that."
"But I'm also not going to destroy our economy," he added. "There's a reality here. There's a balance on that end of it that we need to be focused on."
Some Republicans have accused the IPCC of coercion on global warming. Trump economic aide Larry Kudlow said on ABC, "I won't say it's a scare tactic, but I think they overestimate."
In response, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said, "We are in crisis mode and you have an administration that virtually does not even recognize the reality of climate change."
'Ignorance'
When CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl pressed Trump on the many scientists who contributed to the IPCC document, the president said, "You'd have to show me the scientists, because they have a very big political agenda." Trump also suggested a warming climate could soon start cooling.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the Senate's climate hawks, responded on Twitter: "The @UN just told us we don't have time to hope and see if the climate will just 'change back again.' We need immediate and transformational action."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) also said on Twitter: "Trump is risking millions of lives with his ignorance toward climate change. There has never been a more urgent time to embrace climate action. The future depends on it."
Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann criticized Trump's comment that "scientists also have a political agenda."
Mann said on Twitter: "Trump is the master of projection. He only (falsely) [accuses] others of the very thing he knows he, in fact, is guilty of ..."
Gavin Schmidt, climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in response to Rubio's comments, "It's a good thing that scientists have indeed already looked at how much recent trends in climate are due to human activity." Schmidt linked to a Bloomberg graphic titled "What's Really Warming the World?"
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was one GOP outlier in the weekend debate over climate change. "I hope that we can move along with the rest of the world and address this," Flake said on ABC's "This Week."
"It's going to be challenging. Obviously, that report was pretty dire," said Flake. "But there are things that we can do and should do, and I think Republicans need to be at the forefront if we want to keep our place and keep our seats."
Flake, who is retiring, is not new to the debate. In 2009, he backed carbon tax legislation as a House representative with former South Carolina GOP Rep. Bob Inglis.
And while more Republicans are being vocal about the need to do something about global warming — take the Climate Solutions Caucus and Florida GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo's advocacy — Democrats and their green allies see GOP divisions as a winning issue at the polls (E&E Daily, Oct. 12).
"We know what everyone who wants to fight back must do: vote on November 6th," said the Sierra Club. "We know where the allegiances of Trump and his accomplices in Congress lie. Now it is up to us to make the change that is needed."
Reporters Robin Bravender and Nick Sobczyk contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/15/stories/1060102567
-
‘I Don’t Know That It’s Man-Made,’ Trump Says of Climate Change. It Is.
Oct 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
President Trump now denies denying climate change. In an interview on Sunday with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Mr. Trump backed off his long-held claim that global warming is a hoax. But he also made several new assertions unsupported by science.
Here’s a rundown of the president’s first extensive comments on climate change since Hurricane Michael ripped through the Florida Panhandleand the United Nations warned that time is running out to stave off the worst consequences of rising temperatures.Natural cycles
WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID
“I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it will change back again.”
Mr. Trump, who has previously speculated about global cooling, went on to tell his interviewer, Lesley Stahl, “I’m not denying climate change, but it could very well go back.”
THE FACTS
Climate change will not reverse itself.
Long-term average global temperatures have moved in one direction in the past 115 years: upward. The rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the start of the Industrial Revolution has already led to more intense wildfire seasons and the melting of Arctic sea ice.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned last week that the world would see even more dangerous conditions, including food shortages, by 2040.
Could those conditions “go back,” as Mr. Trump suggests? In the National Climate Assessment report on science approved by the White House in November, top federal scientists found unequivocally that they will not. The global long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” they wrote. And as for the idea of natural cycles, they added, “we find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.”The human role
WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID
“I don’t think there’s a hoax. I do think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made.”
THE FACTS
Scientists do know that it’s man-made.
The same National Climate Assessment report, vetted by 13 federal agencies, finds “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests, is to blame.
NASA embraces the widely cited statistic that “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree” that warming trends are the result of human activity, while also listing 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold to the same findings.
The other approximately 3 percent that reject anthropogenic warming? Turns out scientists went back to try to recreate the findings of those studies — and in each one found major methodological flaws.Costs and consequences
WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID
“I will say this. I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.”
THE FACTSNot doing anything could cost trillions of dollars.
Here the president is referring in large part to the Paris Agreement, the voluntary pact among nearly 200 nations to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions, from which the Trump administration has vowed to withdraw. In announcing that the United States would abandon the Paris deal, Mr. Trump argued that it would have cost 2.7 million American jobs by 2025 and untold economic revenue.
The numbers came from think tanks opposed to the Paris Agreement. And while economics is less precise than science, here is another for balance: Stanford University researchers this year found that meeting the goals of the Paris deal would save the world tens of trillions of dollars in avoided climate damages, far outweighing most estimated costs.Science and politics
WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID
“Look, scientists also have a political agenda.”
Asked about scientists who say hurricanes and other extreme weather events are worsening, Mr. Trump replied, “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.”
THE FACTS
Scientists dispute that.
No doubt climate change has become politicized. And climate skeptics Sunday night cheered Mr. Trump’s remark. But scientists took umbrage at the notion that their research has an agenda. Here are three in their own words:
Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist, Texas Tech University: “A thermometer isn’t Democrat or Republican. It doesn’t give us a different answer depending on how we vote.”
Andrew Dessler, climate scientist, Texas A&M University: “At its heart, this is just a wacky conspiracy theory,” he wrote. “It’s important to realize that there’s never been a conspiracy by a huge field of science. And this would have to be an extremely massive conspiracy, considering the thousands of scientists working on this. On the other hand, there have been many examples (cigarettes, anyone?) where political advocates have tried to cast doubt on science that is extremely solid. That’s what’s going on here.”What on Earth Is Going On?
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get our latest stories and insights about climate change — along with answers to your questions and tips on how to help.
SIGN UP
Donald Wuebbles, climate scientist, University of Illinois: “No scientists have political agendas. That’s just an excuse.”What others said
Larry Kudlow, the president’s top economic adviser, and Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, also distanced themselves on Sunday from the I.P.C.C. report. Both made claims similar to Mr. Trump’s about a supposed disagreement among scientists about the role of human activity in climate change.
For more on climate change, how we know it’s happening and how we know humans are responsible, read our Q. and A. here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/climate/trump-climate-change-fact-check.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
-
DOJ Plans To Renew Call For Supreme Court To Halt Youth Climate Case
Oct 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is planning to renew its call for the Supreme Court to halt a novel climate change case brought by 21 youth plaintiffs, just weeks before the long-pending and high-profile matter is scheduled to go to trail in a federal district court in Oregon.
The high court this summer rejected a similar request as premature, but DOJ will argue that its forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari is now ripe because the district court judge has not yet ruled on two dispositive motions the government filed in the spring also seeking to end the case.
The litigation, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, centers on the youth's claims that the government has violated their constitutional and public trust rights by failing to protect them from climate change. The plaintiffs seek a court order requiring the government to issue a climate protection plan that reduces greenhouse gases to a level scientists say is needed to avoid the worst damages.
The move comes days after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as the newest Supreme Court justice Oct. 6, taking over for retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had overseen the federal circuit in which this case was filed. Kennedy had rejected DOJ's earlier appeal July 30, one of his final acts as a justice.
It is unclear whether Kavanaugh -- who has never upheld a climate-related rule during his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- will now oversee the many western states in the 9th Circuit, as Kennedy did. The high court's website lists Chief Justice John Roberts as overseeing that circuit effective Aug. 1, which is the day after Kennedy retired.
Phillip Gregory, an attorney for the youth plaintiffs, tells Inside EPA that he does not know which justice would receive DOJ's pending petition. The government first will go to the 9th Circuit -- which has already rebuffed two prior efforts to step in and halt the case before it is complete at the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
DOJ on Oct. 12 submitted an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus to the 9th Circuit seeking a stay of the proceedings pending Supreme Court review -- a move it had earlier signaled in an Oct. 5 motion urging district Judge Ann Aiken to pause discovery and the trial slated to begin Oct. 29, so it could pursue these new appeals.
Attorneys for the youth and the government discussed the new plans for the late appeal at an Oct. 4 status conference, during which the youth's lawyers vehemently opposed the move. Attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust said the status conference was called to allow the plaintiffs to understand “what is new and different about [DOJ's] renewed motion to stay the case and their renewed petition to the Supreme Court to dismiss the case that makes it not frivolous and not harassment of plaintiffs on the eve of trial.”
She added that two weeks prior, the parties had an in-person meeting where, “I asked if there were any other motions that were not motions in limine [seeking to prevent evidence from being presented or] any other petitions to the Supreme Court in the works, and counsel said they had no knowledge of anything like this coming.”
'What Has Changed'
DOJ attorney Sean Duffy said the decision to appeal again is in response to the district court's failure to rule on its dispositive motions “since we last went to the Supreme Court. I would note that the Supreme Court did say that our motion was premature, dismissed it without prejudice, and also noted that the justiciability of the claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion. That language mirrors the standard for interlocutory review. That's what's changed and that's what we conferred about.”
However, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who presided at the status conference, seemed surprised that Duffy was making that argument. “Excuse me for interrupting, but exactly what has changed? That the dispositive motions . . . have not been ruled on? Is that -- is that your position that that's what changed?”
Duffy responded: “Our motion is no longer premature. That is what's changed.”
There is some speculation that DOJ is renewing its appeal in response to Kavanaugh's confirmation, given that his ascension appears to be the most significant change.
However Gregory, told the Associated Press earlier this week that it is “doubtful” Kavanaugh's presence would make much of a difference.
Courts are generally loathe to interfere in a case at a lower court before it is completed.
Gregory tells Inside EPA that the plaintiffs will continue to stress that defendants are not making any new arguments in their 11th hour appeal.
Further, the plaintiffs note in an Oct. 11 opposition filing that there is no district court requirement that dispositive motions be resolved before a case goes to trial.
The 9th Circuit first rejected DOJ's bid to halt the case in March when a three-judge panel said the government's request for mandamus relief was a “drastic and extraordinary remedy,” and said there is value in allowing trial courts to consider litigation “free of needless appellate interference.”
The same court rejected a second DOJ request in a July 20 per curiam order where the court found nothing had changed since it rejected the first request, and noted that DOJ had not challenged a single specific discovery request.
DOJ's Oct. 5 brief notifying the district court of its pending emergency appeals references an “accompanying memorandum of law” backing its arguments, though that memorandum is not in the case docket. Gregory says the plaintiffs do not have it either, and DOJ did not respond to a request to share a copy.
DOJ argues in the emergency petition that is it likely to win on the merits at the Supreme Court and notes that Kennedy rejected a petition for mandamus relief, while DOJ is now seeking “a stay pending Supreme Court review, as required” by the high court.
“[T]his entire suit is fundamentally inconsistent with Article III” of the Constitution, which addresses legal standing, the filing says, adding that “a trial on Plaintiffs' claims would contravene the [Administrative Procedure Act] and separation of powers, the claims are manifestly without merit, and the relief sought is beyond the authority of the defendants to implement and of any court to order.
“Now that trial is imminent and the district court has failed to rule on the government's dispositive motions, this Court should enter a stay pending the Supreme Court's review of the government's mandamus petition.”
The filing to the 9th Circuit also claims: “The Supreme Court is likely to direct the district court to dismiss this case -- or at least to stay the impending trial and resolve the government's dispositive motions, with a renewed admonition to certify any denial of those motions for interlocutory appeal.”
No 'Material Change'
Attorneys for the youth plaintiffs say in their opposition that DOJ fails “to identify circumstances warranting such relief” as a stay.
“Critically, Defendants fail to allege any material change in fact, law, or circumstances which warrants a favorable decision on their behalf,” the filing argues, adding that even DOJ admits that all three courts have considered and rejected earlier stay applications under “materially identical circumstances. . . . The only changed circumstance asserted by Defendants is that this Court has not yet ruled on two dispositive motions.”
The filing also argues that it makes sense the district court has not yet ruled on the outstanding dispositive motions -- one of which is a May 9 motion for judgment on the pleadings and the second is a May 22 motion for summary judgment -- because there are “disputes of material fact, and important constitutional legal analysis on multiple issues.”
The plaintiffs add that there is “no evidence to suggest this Court is acting with anything but due diligence in this matter. It would be unreasonable to supplant this Court's ability to handle its docket, particularly when the timing of the filing of the currently pending motions was within the sole discretion of the defendants.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/doj-plans-renew-call-supreme-court-halt-youth-climate-case
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested