Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 12/26/2018
-
EPA Defends Decision to Scrap 'Once in' Policy
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly,
In a new court filing, the Trump administration is mounting a two-tier defense of its decision to scrap a long-standing EPA air toxics policy. -
Federal Workforce Starts To Feel Pinch Of Prolonged Shutdown
Dec 26, 2018 | Politico
By John Bresnahan and Rachel Bade
The partial government shutdown entered its fifth day Wednesday with no signs of a breakthrough and hundreds of thousands of federal workers about to feel the pinch of a protracted standoff. -
EPA Employee: 'Luckily, Our Mortgage Is Paid for January'
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
What would normally be a sleepy holiday workweek at EPA headquarters seemed oddly significant today as the agency remained open while others were shuttered during a partial government shutdown. -
Democrats Query EPA Over TSCA Asbestos Assessment, Regulation Plans
Dec 26, 2018 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
As EPA prepares to release its draft assessment of asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), congressional Democrats, who are seeking to ban the substance, are querying the agency's plans to assess and regulate asbestos risks in the wake of media reports detailing the presence of asbestos in talcum powder... -
American Pipeline Security Only Begins With The TSA
Dec 26, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Steven Titch
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), after an assessment of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) pipeline security program management, has called the agency to task for failing to adequately monitor... -
Trade War Hurts U.S Energy Exports, Jobs
Dec 26, 2018 | The Hill
By Kyle Isakower
Trade talks at the G-20 might have produced a ceasefire for one front in the trade war, but collateral damage continues to mount. Retailers warned that the Trump administration’s tariff policies... -
The US Is The Champion Of Energy Realism
Dec 26, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Jerry Rodgers
The UN just completed the “COP24 climate talks,” from December 3 to December 14 in Katowice, Poland. They could not come up with strict emissions cuts, because many are recognizing the balance between environmental concerns and economic growth. -
Government And 3M Working Group Discusses Options For Water Treatment
Dec 26, 2018 | Woodbury Bulletin
By Hannah Black
Three possible solutions to remove chemical pollutants from water in the east metro were introduced Dec. 18 and 19 at the 3M settlement working group meetings at Cottage Grove City Hall. -
How Much Plastic Is In Your Body? Scientists Turn To Oysters, Mussels For Clues
Dec 26, 2018 | Hartford Courant
By Christine Woodside
J. Evan Ward knelt on a dock jutting into Eastern Point Bay at the eastern end of Long Island Sound and hauled up a floating cage containing oysters. -
Scientist Rejects EPA's Claim Of Monitoring Hurdle For Stricter PM NAAQS
Dec 26, 2018 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
An air pollution scientist is disputing a top EPA official's claim that limitations in current emissions monitoring technology could effectively preclude the agency from significantly tightening its fine particulate matter... -
EPA Expected To Maintain Obama-Era Coal Plant Curbs, With A Twist
Dec 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is expected to propose maintaining Obama-era restrictions on mercury pollution from power plants, responding to opposition from electric utilities that have already spent billions of dollars to meet the requirements. -
Lawmakers Approve Green Infrastructure Bill
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate approved legislation last weekend meant to promote green infrastructure, sending it to President Trump for his signature. -
California Invests In Research To Reduce Global Warming Emissions
Dec 26, 2018 | Waste360
California’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC) approved funding for four groundbreaking research initiatives that will develop clean technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advance equitable outcomes for vulnerable communities.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Energy News
Chemical Management 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
-
EPA Defends Decision to Scrap 'Once in' Policy
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly,
In a new court filing, the Trump administration is mounting a two-tier defense of its decision to scrap a long-standing EPA air toxics policy.
Repeal of the "once in, always in" framework "does nothing more than reiterate" what the Clean Air Act already makes clear, EPA attorneys argued in a brief submitted Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And because EPA air chief Bill Wehrum discarded the policy in a January guidance memorandum, that move is not a "final agency action" subject to judicial review, the attorneys added in urging the court to throw out lawsuits brought by the state of California and environmental groups.
The "once in, always in" policy dates back to 1995. It applied to chemical plants, paper mills and other "major" industrial pollution sources covered by maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards because they annually release at least 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons of any combination of such pollutants. Until Wehrum scrapped it in January, the stringent MACT pollution control standards had stayed in place even if a particular plant's toxics releases fell below those thresholds. Now, facilities in that category are regulated as smaller "area sources" subject to more lenient requirements.
In his repeal memo, Wehrum wrote the revised interpretation was in line with lawmakers' intent in drawing that distinction in the Clean Air Act, an argument that EPA's lawyers took up in Friday's brief.
"Congress could have easily written a cut-off into the major and area source definitions," they said in the brief. "But Congress chose not to do so, and that choice reflects Congress' clear intent that those definitions be applied as written."
While environmental groups and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) contend the practical impact of repeal will be more releases of mercury and other toxics into the air, critics have said the "once in, always in" policy effectively discouraged major polluters from curbing hazardous emissions.
Wehrum, who previously served as acting EPA air chief from 2005 to 2007, has spent the bulk of his career as an industry lawyer. This fall, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and five trade groups signaled plans to intervene in the litigation on the side of the administration.
Furthermore, California and other states that disagree with EPA's reading of the major and area source definitions "are not compelled by the 2018 guidance to apply that reading" in the permitting process for individual plants, the agency said in Friday's brief. Should EPA seek to override state regulators' classification of a particular source, that decision would be open to a court challenge, according to the brief.
"In short, the 2018 guidance is not the final step here," the brief said.
In setting the 1995 "once in, always in," framework, also through a memo, a senior EPA air official at the time had described the policy as an attempt to prevent industry backsliding. During his earlier stint as acting EPA air chief, Wehrum had sought to repeal the policy via a formal rulemaking but was ultimately blocked by a Democratic-controlled Congress.
In the January memo, Wehrum wrote the repeal would ease regulatory burdens on businesses "while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants." EPA also expected to "soon" take public comment on "adding regulatory text" to reflect its new interpretation, he wrote. Eleven months later, the agency has yet to do so, although the Friday brief reiterated plans to conduct "a notice-and-comment rulemaking."
Neither Wehrum nor EPA press aides replied to an email this morning asking whether the agency now has a firm timetable for proceeding.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/26/stories/1060110497
-
Federal Workforce Starts To Feel Pinch Of Prolonged Shutdown
Dec 26, 2018 | Politico
By John Bresnahan and Rachel Bade
The partial government shutdown entered its fifth day Wednesday with no signs of a breakthrough and hundreds of thousands of federal workers about to feel the pinch of a protracted standoff.
President Donald Trump and Democratic congressional leaders aren't currently negotiating directly, according to GOP and Democratic aides. Staff-level discussions are continuing, but there's no indication that key players are ready to reach an accord.
Leaders from both parties fear that if a deal isn’t struck soon, the stalemate could easily drag on into mid-January. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is set to become speaker when Democrats take over the chamber on Jan. 3.
On the House side, leadership sources continue to argue that the onus is on the Senate to find a path forward. There were no calls or meetings between House GOP and Democratic leaders scheduled Wednesday. The House isn't planning to return to Washington this week unless a deal is reached and approved by the upper chamber, these sources said.
“As we have always said, the House will pass a plan that can get through the Senate and that the president says he will sign," said AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan. "The White House is engaged in talks with Senate Democrats, and when the Senate acts, the House will be prepared to follow.”
But Senate aides said there is no significant movement there, either. The Senate will be in session on Thursday, but there will be no votes in the chamber until a deal is reached to end the shutdown.
Once she takes over, Pelosi is expected to try to push through a Democratic plan to reopen the government without money for Trump's border wall. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office would not say Wednesday whether he would put a Pelosi-passed spending bill on the floor in the new year.
The full effect of the shutdown will become apparent Wednesday, when federal workers return from the Christmas holiday. They were off this weekend through Tuesday.
Federal offices were set to re-open Wednesday for normal business, unless they were among the nine departments without government funding. Those include the departments of agriculture, commerce, homeland security, housing and urban development, interior, justice, state, transportation and treasury. NASA and the Food and Drug Administration are among the federal agencies hit by the shutdown as well.
Roughly 400,000 federal employees will be furloughed during the shutdown, with another 400,000 deemed “essential personnel” and required to stay on the job without pay.
A Jan. 11 payday is scheduled for federal employees, the first covering the shutdown period for employees in the affected agencies. Until then, federal employees receive pay as normal, according to an Office of Management and Budget statement, abating some of the urgency for striking a deal now, congressional sources said.
Some federal employees told POLITICO they were required to hold off on instituting “orderly shutdown activities” until Wednesday morning. That means they will begin to execute those instructions today.
Trump, with the backing of Republicans on Capitol Hill, has refused to support a funding resolution for roughly one-quarter of the federal government unless Democratic congressional leaders go along with his demand for $5 billion for the border wall. Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have rejected the president’s request.
Trump defiantly proclaimed on Christmas Day that the government will remain closed until he gets his border wall money.
"I can't tell you when the government is going to be open,” Trump told reporters in an Oval Office appearance. “I can tell you it's not going to be open until we have a wall, a fence, whatever they would like to call it.”
Democrats suggested Trump is "having a complete meltdown."
"House Republicans frustrated, discouraged and in disarray," Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) tweeted on Wednesday morning. "House Dems preparing to protect Americans with pre-existing conditions on January 3rd And Individual 1 having a complete meltdown."
Trump was referred to as "Individual 1" in the plea deal of his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/26/government-shutdown-2018-update-1075284
-
EPA Employee: 'Luckily, Our Mortgage Is Paid for January'
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
What would normally be a sleepy holiday workweek at EPA headquarters seemed oddly significant today as the agency remained open while others were shuttered during a partial government shutdown.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told staff in an internal email that they should report for work as usual this week, which was already shortened by federal holidays on Christmas Eve and Christmas. EPA will keep up operations using carryover funds for a limited period of time.
EPA employees told E&E News they expect many offices will be empty anyway since colleagues are on vacation. Still, they seem resigned that they too could be facing furloughs if Congress and President Trump don't agree on new funding soon.
"We have been through this before," one EPA employee said. "I feel discouraged that two years into this administration, this is the best our government can do for us."
This is the third government shutdown under President Trump. EPA also used carryover funds to keep up operations for the prior two lapses in appropriations under this administration.
Advertisement
At least one part of EPA remains closed. The Office of Inspector General posted a notice online that it would be shut down, except for its complaint hotline and some law enforcement functions.
"While the EPA has announced that most of its offices will be open for a limited amount of time, the OIG is independent of the agency and has a separate appropriation. We have determined that, absent an appropriation or continuing resolution, we must shut down," said the IG on its website.
An IG spokeswoman said last week that about 249 employees in the watchdog office could be furloughed (Greenwire, Dec. 21).
Others elsewhere in the federal government have also shut down. Overall, about 400,000 federal employees are estimated to be furloughed during this partial shutdown.
EPA employees said they expected to receive their paychecks this Friday. But if the shutdown extends longer than that, it could affect their future pay.
"Luckily, our mortgage is paid for January, and we'll get a check this Friday — after that, we panic," said one EPA employee. "I'm sure we'll get our back pay, but it's such a pain to have to call creditors and try and explain what is going on."
Others seem worried as well.
In an online survey of its federal employee members taken after the shutdown, the National Treasury Employees Union found that more than 78 percent were "very concerned" about how the funding lapse would affect their ability to pay their bills, rent or mortgage and other basic living expenses. Nearly 1,600 members responded to the survey, the union said.
Mike Mikulka, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, said EPA employees are concerned about their pay next year.
"Most did not want to face another shutdown around the holidays, putting a damper on everyone's mood and creating uncertainty about when the shutdown would end and if we would lose pay in the new year," said Mikulka, whose union represents EPA Region 5 employees in the agency's Chicago office.
In his email, Wheeler said the agency would update staff on EPA operations this Friday. Several employees expect that is when EPA will run out of leftover funds and have to shut down.
That could mean more than 13,000 agency employees would have to stay home while roughly 700 would have to come to work under EPA's shutdown plan. Both sets of workers would be unpaid.
"Most people are prepared for a furlough situation at least early next week. I think folks are bracing for that. The sentiment is we will be furloughed starting Monday," said Jeanne Schulze, president of AFGE Local 1003, whose union represents Region 6 employees in EPA's Dallas office.
Funding for several federal agencies ran out last Friday. The Senate last week had passed a short-term spending measure to keep all of the government open, but the House moved that legislation along with $5 billion for a border wall, a key campaign promise for President Trump.
Trump has said the government will remain shut down until Congress approves border wall funding. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office yesterday on Christmas, the president said the border wall has the support of federal employees (see related story).
"Many of those workers have said to me, communicated, 'Stay out until you get the funding for the wall.' These federal workers want the wall," Trump said.
That puzzled if not angered EPA employees.
"Huh? Who said that?" one said.
Another said colleagues at EPA thought Trump's sentiment was "disgraceful."
"How dare he say government workers want the shutdown and the wall," that employee said.
It seems likely the funding impasse won't be resolved this week. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, who is also Trump's incoming White House chief of staff, said he envisions the shutdown will last into January.
"It's very possible that the shutdown will be on the 28th and into the new Congress," Mulvaney said on Fox News Sunday.
One EPA employee said it was a strange time for a shutdown, considering so many federal workers are off for the holidays. That could hinder an orderly closure of the agency once it runs out of carryover funds.
"If we stay shutdown next week, it will be tricky because so many people are off that running the shutdown scenario will not be so straightforward," an EPA employee said.
Schulze said the furloughs would come at a tough time.
"It can cause a lot of stress for federal workers," she said. "It couldn't come at a worse time, right after Christmas. Bills could be coming due if we are furloughed."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/26/stories/1060110499
-
Democrats Query EPA Over TSCA Asbestos Assessment, Regulation Plans
Dec 26, 2018 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
As EPA prepares to release its draft assessment of asbestos under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), congressional Democrats, who are seeking to ban the substance, are querying the agency's plans to assess and regulate asbestos risks in the wake of media reports detailing the presence of asbestos in talcum powder.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), who introduced companion legislation to ban asbestos, wrote Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Nancy Beck, EPA's top toxics official, on Dec. 20, asking a series of questions about EPA's pending assessment and possible regulation of asbestos under TSCA.
They say in their letter that they are writing out of concern stemming from a Reuters report that detailed the presence of asbestos in talcum powder products used in a variety of consumer goods.
While the lawmakers acknowledge that baby powder is subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, they note that talc products sold to consumers could be subject to EPA regulation under TSCA.
“Ongoing efforts to reduce the health risks of asbestos exposure would be woefully incomplete if those efforts did not address TSCA-regulated talc products contaminated with asbestos,” they write.
Their letter comes as EPA prepares to release its draft assessment of asbestos, an effort that is already facing significant criticism as the agency declined to consider several uses -- including legacy uses and uses regulated by other agencies and programs -- from its assessment.
EPA also decided in its latest scoping documents to exclude firefighters, one population known to be susceptible because of higher exposure to asbestos, because their exposures are to legacy uses of asbestos products. The International Association of Fire Fighters protested the decision in comments last summer.
And EPA's scoping documents indicate the agency will not address talc products. According to a chart identifying “Categories of Conditions of Use Included in the Scope of the Risk Evaluation,” the agency identified seven industrial product categories it will consider, ranging from asbestos diaphragms used by the chlor-alkali industry to aftermarket auto brake products manufactured for some vehicles.
The scoping document does mention talc products in its appendix of state and federal statutes and regulations on asbestos, where it notes that New Jersey identifies “talc containing asbestos . . . on [its] Right to Know Hazardous Substances list.”
Lawmakers' Questions
Merkley and Bonamici, who is slated to chair the House science committee's environment subcommittee, ask EPA to answer a series of questions, among them, “[w]hat policies and guidance does EPA have in place or in development to reduce the presence of talcum powder or any other asbestos mixtures in household consumer goods?” and [w]hat steps is EPA taking to educate and protect . . . vulnerable populations and to help them minimize exposure?”
Noting EPA's new TSCA authorities, including its requirement that EPA consider susceptible subpopulations in its analyses and risk management actions, they ask, “what populations has EPA identified as disproportionately at risk either because of greater exposure to asbestos or greater susceptibility to injury from asbestos?” and “[h]ow has the identification of these populations affected EPA’s decision to regulate or not to regulate asbestos?”
Merkley and Bonamici also question EPA about the Significant New Use Rule the agency proposed along with the release of its asbestos scoping document. Through a SNUR, EPA can regulate any new uses of a substance by requiring that manufacturers give EPA pre-market review of any use of a substance named in a rule. The rule, like the scoping document, has been criticized for being overly narrow. The lawmakers ask if the asbestos SNUR will “assure that EPA is notified of, and has the ability to restrict, all new consumer products contaminated with asbestos?” and if not, why.
Bonamici and Merkley are sponsors of bills that would require EPA to ban asbestos within 18 months of enactment, H.R. 5114 and S. 2072. Neither bill has a Republican co-sponsor, nor has either advanced out of committee. But the lawmakers say in a joint Dec. 20 press statement that they “plan to make a renewed push for this legislation in January in the next session of Congress.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-query-epa-over-tsca-asbestos-assessment-regulation-plans
-
American Pipeline Security Only Begins With The TSA
Dec 26, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Steven Titch
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), after an assessment of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) pipeline security program management, has called the agency to task for failing to adequately monitor the vulnerability of the 2.7 million-mile network of pipelines that transport and distribute natural gas all across the U.S.
In particular, the GAO criticized the agency for its lack of process for determining when to update its physical and cybersecurity guidelines for pipeline operators. The GAO also faulted the TSA for lacking a process to identify and assess new risks.
Before getting too alarmed, it’s important to remember that GAO hits weaknesses in the TSA’s security evaluation program and personnel management, not in the state of U.S. pipeline security itself.
Thankfully, there is substantial evidence that our nation’s natural gas industry remains committed to implementing the highest level of protections against physical and cyberattacks. Worldwide, pipeline operators spent $6.1 billion in 2017 on security systems and services. Annual investment in pipeline security systems is expected to reach $10.07 billion by 2023, according to market research firm Mordor Intelligence.
Yet security is a job that’s never finished. Protocols and policies must stay ahead of ever-changing threats. “Without such a documented process, TSA cannot ensure that its guidelines reflect the latest known standards and best practices for physical security and cybersecurity, or address the dynamic security threat environment that pipelines face,” the GAO report states.
But while the GAO concludes that the TSA and its regulators could do more to accurately catalog pipeline threats and communicate real vulnerabilities, the industry is already working diligently to bolster collaborative efforts and channels of communication with federal agencies.
For example, the industry works through the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector Coordinating Council (ONG SCC) to communicate regularly with the layers of government agencies involved with security – including TSA – and provide insight into the comprehensive cybersecurity programs of the natural gas and oil industry.
All the GAO’s recommendations require TSA officials to work more closely with the agency’s Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement—the TSA arm that connects with private sector stakeholders in aviation, rail and pipeline security. While most Americans’ experience with the TSA is limited to airport inspections, the agency’s scope is quite wide. When it comes to pipeline security, the GAO would like to see a methodology and metrics for risk assessment, uniform definitions of terms, a structure for peer review and a sound determination of the personnel required to meet these and related goals.
Yet if there’s a subtext to be found in these recommendations, it’s how large a leadership role in security we can realistically expect from the government. That might be the primary takeaway, especially since this latest report follows a previous set of general cybersecurity recommendations the watchdog office issued in September. That report slammed Washington in general for its failure to establish a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy and perform effective oversight of national cybersecurity, as called for by law.
While there are regular bipartisan calls for more government direction in various areas of critical infrastructure’s physical and cybersecurity, private sector initiatives have consistently outpaced the government’s own capabilities and resources. The report makes it clear that the government must manage its in-house security concerns, but it does not conclude agencies like the TSA need to take a larger role in directing overall industry standards and practices. In fact, voluntary mechanisms and the extensive system of public-private partnerships already established, rather than prescriptive regulations, is the best way to bolster the cybersecurity of our nation’s energy infrastructure.
In short, the TSA’s pipeline security initiative, whatever form it ultimately takes, should be the beginning of the process, not the end—a baseline to build on, not a mandated template to follow.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/12/26/american_pipeline_security_only_begins_with_the_tsa_110375.html
-
Trade War Hurts U.S Energy Exports, Jobs
Dec 26, 2018 | The Hill
By Kyle Isakower
Trade talks at the G-20 might have produced a ceasefire for one front in the trade war, but collateral damage continues to mount.
Retailers warned that the Trump administration’s tariff policies could raise prices on everything “from cribs to Christmas lights.” They were right. The Tariffs Hurt the Heartland coalition recently announced that Americans are paying more to light the tree this year. The vast majority of our holiday lights come from China, which means they’re subject to a new 10 percent tariff this year -- another casualty in the ongoing, multi-front trade war.
Industries from agriculture to automobile manufacturers are facing limitations in critical materials, billions in increased costs, compromised access to valuable overseas markets, or sometimes a financially fatal combination of the three.
Tariff and quota policies are hitting America’s natural gas and oil industry from multiple directions. We can’t operate without steel to drill wells that produce energy; operate refineries that turn it into gasoline and a variety of other essentials; and build pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals and petrochemicals plants.
Like Christmas lights, numerous specialty steel products we rely on simply aren’t manufactured in the United States in sufficient quantities, if at all, or to the quality and delivery schedule specifications we need. The 25 percent tariff on steel supplied by top economic partners – including Canada, Japan, Mexico and European nations – has a concrete impact on job-creating projects.
Take the Cactus II pipeline, a $1.1 billion project from Plains All American Pipeline LP to transport crude oil from the prolific Permian Basin. Although 80 percent of the project cost is comprised of U.S. material and labor, including 2,600 construction jobs, construction also required line pipe made to specifications produced by only three steel mills in the world, none of them in the U.S. Denied an exclusion on steel, ordered from Greece before the tariffs were implemented, the project managed to move forward but only after getting slammed with an additional $40 million in costs – essentially a tax on job creation.
It’s not just a matter of increased costs. As damaging as tariffs are, quotas are worse. A number of U.S. allies are bracing for quotas or already operating under them, which means that materials from those nations won’t be available at any price once we reach the pre-determined limit. Quotas will cut the supply of much-needed steel products, forcing American companies to delay or cancel crucial projects that would create U.S. jobs and boost the economy.
There’s no guarantee U.S. steel industry will invest the several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to begin producing these specialized products, and it’s easy to understand why. Why upend your business model and incur massive costs for products that make up less than 10 percent of your domestic market?
Then there are the retaliatory tariffs imposed by the China, which could impede U.S. energy exports from entering one of the fastest-growing and lucrative energy markets in the world. As the world’s leading natural gas producer, the U.S. should have a major competitive advantage in this crucial market. Energy trade with China means more jobs at home – not just in natural gas production and pipeline construction, but in building and operating multi-billion-dollar export facilities, several of which are ready to break ground.
Despite the temporary truce reached this month, the impacts on U.S. LNG could last long past any resolution of the trade war. As S&P Global Platts puts it, “The tariffs will push Chinese buyers to other sellers in Asia and the Middle East because the U.S. will no longer be considered a low-cost option.”
Ironically, White House trade policy is actually undermining solutions to the very trade deficits its policies were meant to address. American energy has reduced the trade deficit by about $250 billion over the last decade, according to a new report from research firm IHS Markit. With surging domestic production, net imports of petroleum products have dropped by more than 100 percent since 2013, with the U.S. poised to be a net crude oil exporter by 2026. Now that China has slapped U.S. LNG with a 10 percent retaliatory tariff and suspended purchases of U.S. crude oil, our increasing energy exports are at risk – to the benefit of our competitors.
There’s a problem when Qatar and Russia are the big winners in U.S. trade policy, and everything from Christmas lights to natural gas are among the losers. Let’s re-focus U.S. trade policy to address truly discriminatory trade practices – a vital objective – without jeopardizing U.S. jobs and energy leadership.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/422848-trade-war-hurts-us-energy-exports-jobs
-
The US Is The Champion Of Energy Realism
Dec 26, 2018 | RealClear Energy
By Jerry Rodgers
The UN just completed the “COP24 climate talks,” from December 3 to December 14 in Katowice, Poland. They could not come up with strict emissions cuts, because many are recognizing the balance between environmental concerns and economic growth. Just look at the rebellion in France over carbon tax hikes and the world can see that not many citizens of nations are willing to pay massive increases for energy to pay for an international vision that has proven unrealistic.
The European Union arrived in Katowice insisting on impossible timetables for a complete phaseout of fossil fuels. Nations part of the EU resisted a hasty transition that imperils rural communities, national security and the electric grid. The host nation of the conference, Poland, is not on board with the EU’s plans. Poland has relied on coal for decades as the backbone of its economy, claiming that without energy produced by coal, Poland would become dangerously dependent on Russian energy. The country’s president, Andrzej Duda, remarked during the COP that Poland’s coal industry still has a lot of road ahead of it—and that he will not allow anyone to “murder coal mining.”
There are reasonable nations who are willing to confront the fundamental financial and technological realities of today’s energy landscape. By hosting a side panel at the climate talks focusing on how nuclear energy and technology to burn fossil fuels cleanly can contribute to achieving emissions goals, the U.S. has positioned itself firmly as the leader of the latter.
This could have been an opportunity for rational discussion on clean coal technologies. The U.S.-led panel offered countries attending the COP24—particularly developing nations who are urgently trying to extend their electric grids to cover their entire populations—an opportunity to discuss and share information about cutting-edge technologies which could allow them to continue to use all available energy resources while reducing emissions. The UN makes these rational discussions rare. One State Department official involved in planning the COP24 remarked, “Quite frankly, the U.S. is the only party to the convention that appears to be willing to push a rational discussion on the role of cleaner, more efficient fossil fuels and the role of civilian nuclear energy. »
The Trump administration’s willingness to shake off pressure from other developed countries to focus exclusively on renewable energy fits into the policy of energy realism which has characterized Rick Perry’s tenure at the U.S. Energy Department. Secretary Perry laid out his vision for American energy policy in March at the CERA Week energy conference in Houston, emphasizing that “we don’t have to choose between growing our economy and caring for our environment. By embracing innovation over regulation, we can benefit both.”
At the heart of this energy realism is the boost that kickstarting investment in sectors such as battery storage—which could alleviate the problem of intermittency inherent in renewable energy—and carbon capture and storage (CCS)—which most scientists agree will be essential to hitting global emissions reductions goals—could give to the American economy. Analysts have estimated that CCS alone could add 780,000 jobs and $190 billion to the American GDP by 2040.
The Trump administration’s new focus on developing these technologies won’t just pad the U.S. treasury and provide well-paying jobs for thousands of Americans - it will also offer opportunities for America’s allies overseas. As Secretary Perry has repeatedly underscored, many people living in developing countries currently have no access to electricity whatsoever. In war-torn South Sudan, for example, a stunning 99% of citizens do not have access to electricity, severely cramping development and forcing people to resort to dangerous methods to cook and heat their homes.
It would seem obvious that for these countries, turning the lights on is their first priority. As Jacob Masiala, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa put it, “those who want to see an end to fossil fuel need to spend more time on the ground in Africa. When you have no job and live in a shack without electricity and your family is always hungry, you don’t talk about climate change. You worry about the next meal, not the next 50 years.” A realistic policy makes sense and the elites at the UN are pushing ideas that will cause hardship on the poor who can’t afford to pay higher energy prices to please the rich nations’ goal to eliminate all fossil fuels.
The Trump administration is on the cutting edge and has proposed to provide new “Clean and Advanced Fossil Fuel Alliance,” which would share the latest developments, as well as high-emissions, low-efficiency (HELE) technologies, which could cut emissions from coal plants by as much as 40%. The U.S. delegation to the COP24 once again underlined the American government’s commitment to opening up conversations about these promising technologies—in spite of climate alarmists blindly trying to shut those discussions down.
The U.S. is leading on a rational policy that will help clean up the environment, while using cutting edge technologies as a means to avoid the harmful impact of merely hiking carbon taxes world-wide that would hurt the very people that the UN purports to want to help.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/12/26/the_us_is_the_champion_of_energy_realism_110378.html
-
Government And 3M Working Group Discusses Options For Water Treatment
Dec 26, 2018 | Woodbury Bulletin
By Hannah Black
Three possible solutions to remove chemical pollutants from water in the east metro were introduced Dec. 18 and 19 at the 3M settlement working group meetings at Cottage Grove City Hall.
Karla Peterson from Minnesota Department of Health and Shalene Thomas from Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Inc., presented the government, 3M working group, and the citizen and business group with information on technologies to treat water affected by PFAS, a chemical pollutant in the perfluorochemical (PFC) family.
The three treatment options are:
• Removal with granular activated carbon
• Removal with ion-exchange resins
• Removal with membrane filtration/reverse osmosis
Thomas emphasized that PFAs are considered "emerging contaminants" and technologies for its removal from water are still being developed. She wanted to make clear there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach for removal because of the many variables to consider, and not all of the treatments are approved for drinking water.
The working groups were formed after the state of Minnesota and 3M Corp. settled a lawsuit in February 2018 for $850 million, which is to be used for cleaning PFCs that were dumped in the east metro by 3M from drinking water and groundwater.
The next working group meetings are Jan. 15-16. There are designated times for public comment at all meetings.
Drinking water subgroup holds first meeting
The Drinking Water Supply Subgroup met for the first time Dec. 19. Its goal is to look at long-term drinking water supply options and treatment of existing water supply in the areas affected by PFCs and report back to the working groups.
Like the two working groups, the subgroup is made up of experts from 3M, the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Council and Washington County. The cities of Afton, Cottage Grove, Lake Elmo, Lakeland, Maplewood, Newport, Oakdale, St. Paul Park and Woodbury, and the townships of Denmark, Grey Cloud Island and West Lakeland will each have one representative in the subgroup.
The next Drinking Water Supply Subgroup meeting is scheduled for Jan. 16, after which meetings are scheduled monthly.
Additional subgroups may be added later to address other parts of the settlement.
https://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/government-and-politics/4546917-government-and-3m-working-group-discusses-options-water
-
How Much Plastic Is In Your Body? Scientists Turn To Oysters, Mussels For Clues
Dec 26, 2018 | Hartford Courant
By Christine Woodside
J. Evan Ward knelt on a dock jutting into Eastern Point Bay at the eastern end of Long Island Sound and hauled up a floating cage containing oysters.
These oysters came here from nearby Mason’s Crab Cove and serve as the resident population for lab studies that Ward, a professor of marine sciences, conducts at the University of Connecticut Avery Point. He studies these and other oysters and sediment gathered on boats operated by Norm Bloom and Sons of Norwalk.
Oysters are master water filterers. A single oyster can filter up to 1.3 gallons of water per hour. They process much of what ends up in Long Island Sound. That includes the ever-increasing load of tiny pieces of waste plastic. Some of this ends up in their bodies.
New England’s great oyster markets appear so far to have escaped large plastic contamination. Oysters collected by Ward’s team contain fewer plastic pieces than one might expect—8 to 10 pieces per oyster, he said.
Oysters likely encounter more plastic than that but will spit out pieces larger than 1 millimeter, Ward said. Although oysters today contain few plastics, their bodies will encounter, and probably accumulate, much more than this because people are discarding more and more plastic every year.
Our throwaway society has created much of the microplastics problem. Around the world broken-up pieces of plastic waste, pieces from a few millimeters in size to so small that they can’t be seen, wash into waterways and oceans.
They enter water supplies, food, the guts of marine animals, fish, and shellfish and humans. Scientists don’t know all the ways they enter the water, or how they harm the environment or people. Early results show that these fragments are everywhere.
“We’re really behind in the United States,” Ward said. “We are very much behind. The Europeans have much more money to study this.”
The effect of microplastics on human health remains largely unknown. King’s College London scientist Stephanie L. Wright wrote in a study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology: “Chronic exposure is anticipated to be of greater concern due to the accumulative effect that could occur. This is expected to be dose-dependent, and a robust evidence-base of exposure levels is currently lacking.” In other words, the more plastics in the environment, the higher the threat.
Plastic particles travel and accumulate in the human body, especially in lymph nodes and around joint replacements. They can carry harmful chemicals that attach to them in the ocean. They can cause immune system problems. Airborne particles like nylon can lodge in the lungs, causing breathing disorders.
Plastic pieces lodge in the intestinal tracts and tissues of oysters, clams, mussels and scallops, which humans eat whole. In studies of sand and gravel and mussels collected at Avery Point in Groton, Ward and three other scientists found microplastics in 73 percent of the sand and gravel samples and in all of the mussels they collected. These findings were published in Environmental Science & Technology in August.
Scientists know that plastic pieces find their way into drinking water, sea salt and even beer. University of Minnesota public health scientist Mary Kosuth and her colleagues documented small plastic particles in all three in the Great Lakes region.
“The microplastics just keep on getting smaller and smaller and smaller,” Kosuth said. “They don’t biodegrade.”
Plastic that breaks into pieces includes synthetic clothing fibers, water bottles, cups and cup lids, straws, plastic bags and microbeads—the tiny bits of plastic mainly used in exfoliating body washes and facial scrubs. The federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 halted the manufacturing of microbeads in cosmetics in 2017 and over-the-counter medicine last year, but the microbeads in medicine can still be sold until next year.
“There are a lot of them out there still,” Ward said.
For several years now, people have heard about the “great Pacific garbage patch”
Despite how we might envision it, the “patch” consists of swirling wastelands of very tiny pieces, said Marcus Eriksen, a scientist, activist and author of Junk Raft, who saw some of the plastic gyres while floating with Joel Paschel across the Pacific Ocean in a raft made of old plastic bottles. Eriksen said plastics’ effect on human health represents a new frontier for science. “It’s really everywhere, but does it cause harm? We don’t know for sure.”
Most of the plastics in the ocean come from single-use objects and containers, and the rest from fishing gear. The tiny particles are easy for marine life to take in, and scientists worry about polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the insecticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and other chemicals plastics absorb. Eriksen said eventually plastics will be found sunken to the ocean floor, washed ashore, or “excreted and deposited as sediment.”
China is the No. 1 contributor of plastic washing into waterways, and the United States is 20th, according to a study published three years ago in the journal Science. That study estimated that 192 coastal countries contribute between 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic to the oceans every year. Without some way to stop the waste, it will greatly increase by 2025, the authors wrote. Eriksen said the plastic waste amounts to 5.25 trillion pieces. “Ninety-two percent are smaller than a grain of rice,” he said in an email interview.
Plastic is so ubiquitous in daily life, Ward said, that “you’re also eating a lot of microplastics every morning when you take off your fuzzy synthetic sweater over your coffee and it’s raining into your coffee.”
And it’s not just microplastics that affect marine life. It’s estimated that over 1 billion plastic bags are used annually, and more than 100,000 end up in Long Island Sound each year. Three Connecticut towns have banned plastic bags in their stores: Westport’s ban took effect in 2009, Greenwich’s ban started in September and Stamford’s ban takes effect in April 2019. Other communities are considering similar bans on plastic and some are looking at banning plastic straws too.
Denise Savageau, Greenwich’s retired conservation director who has been active in the plastic-reducing movement, said many residents worry that using plastics along the coast harms the environment. “There’s so much plastic on the bed in Long Island Sound, it’s just incredible,” she said.
Savageau said people are confused when they see plastics labeled “biodegradable” or “degradable.” These plastics don’t actually break down, she said, but instead fragment into tiny pieces. With the exception of a few cornstarch-based materials labeled “compostable,” plastic doesn’t degrade, she said.
Richard Harris, a marine scientist for Norm Bloom and Sons, said they are not hearing any concerns so far from the public about plastic. But he said the company is relieved that microbeads are being phased out this year. “There are no alarm bells going off, but if we continue on our present course, I’m sure we will be.”
For now, Ward said, he continues to enjoy the mollusks he studies so closely.
“Do I eat mussels and oysters? Yes. Am I concerned about the number of plastics in mussels and oysters? No, in 2018,” he said.
But about the future, he’s unsure. “Will our kids be able to eat them?” he asked.
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-plastic-in-human-body-20181226-kpwrslhuebai5pbncgk4m3kyhm-story.html
-
Scientist Rejects EPA's Claim Of Monitoring Hurdle For Stricter PM NAAQS
Dec 26, 2018 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
An air pollution scientist is disputing a top EPA official's claim that limitations in current emissions monitoring technology could effectively preclude the agency from significantly tightening its fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air standard, countering that science justifies a stricter limit and technology is able to measure such a standard.
George Allen, chief scientist with the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) that represents air quality agencies in the region, told a recent meeting of EPA advisers in Arlington, VA, that monitors are able to measure PM emissions as low as 5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).
EPA set the current PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) at 12 ug/m3 in 2012, and is currently performing a Clean Air Act-mandated five year review to determine whether to change the limit.
Some studies have pointed toward a much tougher NAAQS, perhaps even 5 ug/m3, as the appropriate level. Like ozone, PM has so far proven to be a "no threshold" pollutant, meaning there is no level of the pollutant deemed "safe," driving stricter NAAQS but also creating implementation problems for states and industry.
But the Trump administration is unlikely to pursue stricter ambient air limits because of its deregulatory agenda. And Clint Woods, deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Air & Radiation, has said that limitations in emissions monitoring could make it technically impossible to set a 5 ug/m3 standard.
Speaking at the Texas Environmental Superconference in Austin Aug. 2, Woods said it would not be feasible to implement such a strict limit, given monitoring and other restrictions. “I think there's a lot of those who think that science that has been developed since 2012 suggests that that standard needs to be in the single digits, and maybe as low as 5 [ug/m3], which is well below what any current monitor can measure."
NESCAUM's Allen, however, told the Dec. 12 PM NAAQS review meeting of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) that he disagreed with Woods' comments, saying they are “not consistent with the measurement capabilities of existing instruments.”
Woods was referring to the annual PM NAAQS, which has a form of a three-year average of 24-hour PM measurements on at least every third day, Allen said. This three-year average is composed of around 300 individual daily (24-hour) measurements. "While it is true that some continuous PM measurement methods have substantial uncertainty at 5 ug/m3 for 1-hour measurements, the Federal Reference Method [FRM] for PM2.5 is capable of measuring a 3-year average concentration of 5 ug/m3 with sufficient accuracy and precision for use in comparison to an annual PM2.5 NAAQS," Allen said. The FRM is the official EPA-approved method to measure PM and determine NAAQS compliance.
Further, he said that in "the last few years, continuous Federal Equivalent Methods [FEMs] for PM2.5 using optical measurement techniques have become more common, and these methods produce data that are very stable at low PM concentrations, even for hourly average concentrations,” referring to FEMs that are EPA-approved alternative measurement methods deemed as accurate as FRMs.
Technical Feasibility
Allen's comments could help supporters of a more-stringent PM2.5 NAAQS in their push for CASAC to recommend such a limit to the agency when it completes its review of the 2012 standard.
However, some CASAC panelists have criticized the Trump administration's new abbreviated NAAQS review process that they are operating under. One former CASAC member at the meeting even called the process a “joke” that will lead to an inadequate review, posing the risk of lawsuits over the conclusion of the review.
EPA is aiming to complete its PM2.5 NAAQS review by December 2020 and the issue of whether there are technological limitations to meeting a stricter standard is emerging as a major dispute.
Under Supreme Court precedent established in a 2001 ruling, many observers consider EPA prohibited from considering technical feasibility or cost of implementing NAAQS when setting the standards. The agency has long regarded itself as limited to addressing such questions after standards are set, in the implementation phase.
Critics say this still risks states being asked to implement standards that could be technically infeasible or cost-prohibitive to implement. For example, industry groups and states challenging EPA's 2015 ozone standards in litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are arguing that high naturally occurring "background" ozone levels can render the ozone standard impossible for some states to implement. Hence, the standard is not "achievable" and is therefore unlawful, industry groups and states argue.
The NAAQS' opponents made this case despite years of D.C. Circuit precedent holding cost and feasibility considerations to be off-limits for EPA when setting standards.
Lawyers for EPA at oral argument Dec. 18 in the ozone suit, Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, said there is no Clean Air Act obligation on EPA to consider feasibility of meeting NAAQS in standard-setting. But they further said EPA intends to explore if the agency may consider feasibility if it wishes in the ongoing review of ozone NAAQS that is due to conclude in October 2020.
In addition, the Trump EPA has tasked CASAC for the first time with providing advice on cost and feasibility of implementing NAAQS, although it is unclear how the committee will approach this. So far, CASAC has not considered such issues in the PM and ozone NAAQS reviews. However, critics say that EPA is in effect risking an unlawful co-mingling of public health and implementation issues in the context of NAAQS reviews.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/scientist-rejects-epas-claim-monitoring-hurdle-stricter-pm-naaqs
-
EPA Expected To Maintain Obama-Era Coal Plant Curbs, With A Twist
Dec 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is expected to propose maintaining Obama-era restrictions on mercury pollution from power plants, responding to opposition from electric utilities that have already spent billions of dollars to meet the requirements.
At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to propose changes that may make it harder to toughen mercury emissions standards in the future by disavowing the legal justification for the regulation and altering the way its health benefits are measured.
The proposal reflects a balancing act for the Trump administration, which has struggled to address a rule loathed by coal producers, viewed warily by EPA officials who object to how it was justified, and yet has already been complied with by power companies.
“We’ve been in compliance for a number of years now, the equipment is operating and it is effective. We really see no reason at all to roll back the requirements,” said John McManus, senior vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power Co. Inc. “Retired plants aren’t coming back, and we see no reason to turn back the controls that are running on our existing plants.”
Coal Plants Closed
The 2012 rule prompted a wave of coal-fired power plant closures and drew the ire of a powerful foe: coal magnate Robert E. Murray, who has spent years crusading against the regulation in court. His coal company, Murray Energy Corp., argues its domestic sales have suffered as a result of the standards.
But power companies such as Duke Energy Corp. have implored the EPA and White House to leave the mercury standards intact. Utilities have already spent some $18 billion installing required technology to fulfill the requirements and satisfy April 2015 compliance deadlines that have long since passed, industry trade groups told the EPA this summer.
For instance, AEP has invested nearly $8.8 billion on environmental equipment retrofits at its coal-fired power plants since 2000, with much of that equipment contributing to its compliance with the mercury rule. The utility-owner has retired 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired generation from 2011 through 2016 as part of its effort to meet the more stringent mercury rules. Mercury emissions from its plants have dropped 95 percent since 2001.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest U.S. source of mercury, a metal that is converted in soil and water into a neurotoxin that can lower IQ, cause motor function deficits, damage the nervous system, and lead to more heart attacks.
“More mercury in the air means more mercury in the water, which means more mercury in the fish, which means more mercury in people who eat the fish,” said Janet McCabe, an acting assistant administrator of the EPA’s air office in the Obama administration. “That is especially problematic for young children, pregnant women and the babies they are carrying.”
Setting Up New Lawsuits
The EPA is set to propose keeping the mercury limits in place while simultaneously withdrawing an assertion the requirements are “appropriate and necessary”— a legal benchmark under the Clean Air Act.
The change would arm the rule’s opponents with ammunition for another lawsuit challenging the mercury standards in an effort to win a court-ordered repeal. It’s not clear any such litigation would prevail; a 2008 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on another mercury rule sets a high bar.
Although the EPA is ensnared by the partial government shutdown, it has enough leftover funding to continue operating, at least this week. The agency is expected to issue the proposal as soon as Dec. 26.
The EPA also is set to recalculate the cost and benefits of the mercury rule in a way that dramatically shrinks its estimated potential health gains—a change that could prevent the EPA from making the mercury pollution requirements more stringent in the future.
At issue are the broad health benefits that spring from regulations—not just those that directly flow from reducing a pollutant explicitly targeted by individual rules. In the case of the mercury rule, for example, the technology utilities employed to curtail mercury emissions also pared the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide belched out of their power plants, which the EPA said would reduce asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature deaths.
Those “co-benefits” of the mercury rule were an essential figure in the Obama administration’s calculation of the its ultimate price tag. Although the EPA estimated it would cost industry $9.6 billion annually to install necessary technology, it said health benefits from reducing mercury and other non-targeted pollutants were worth nearly 10 times more.
As much as 89 percent of the 2012 rule’s health benefits came from reducing fine particulate matter—beyond the toxic air pollutants the measure actually targeted, according to the EPA.
Now, under President Donald Trump, the EPA is set to assert that because it is leaning on its Clean Air Act authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants, it is improper to consider the health benefits of paring other pollution.
The EPA may argue that pollutants regulated under other programs can’t be used to “justify a regulation that is only supposed to be about hazardous air pollutants,” said Jeff Holmstead, an assistant EPA administrator under former President George W. Bush.
Costs Exceed Benefits
By disregarding co-benefits, the new proposal is set to conclude that the rule’s costs exceed its benefits. Environmentalists say the change could preclude the agency from counting these benefits to justify the cost of toughening requirements in the future.
The Trump administration approach would limit “the EPA’s ability to recognize the full range of benefits that result from pollution control,” said Joe Goffman, a former senior counsel in agency’s air office. The result is “to limit the reach of the Clean Air Act as a tool for regulating air pollution and protecting public health.”
The mercury standards have been the subject of litigation for years. After they were imposed in 2012, the coal industry sued, ultimately forcing the EPA to revisit its conclusions. The Obama administration reinstated the regulation in 2016 and Murray Energy sued to block it, but a federal appeals court delayed the case so the Trump administration could reconsider the rule.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-expected-to-maintain-obama-era-coal-plant-curbs-with-a-twist
-
Lawmakers Approve Green Infrastructure Bill
Dec 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Manuel Quiñones
The Senate approved legislation last weekend meant to promote green infrastructure, sending it to President Trump for his signature.
H.R. 7279, from Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), would task EPA with promoting green infrastructure and amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to better plan for contamination, including from stormwater discharges.
The bill, backed by a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, passed the House almost as soon as it was introduced earlier this month.
Other House-passed bills cleared by the Senate over the weekend include:H.R. 1967, from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize pumped-storage hydropower development using multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs.H.R. 4689, from Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), to authorize early repayment of obligations to Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in Nebraska.H.R. 7319, from Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), to amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to provide flexibility with respect to the lease-back of certain federal properties.
The House sent President Trump several other bills last week, including measures related to nuclear energy and international rainforest conservation (E&E News PM, Dec. 21).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/26/stories/1060110485
-
California Invests In Research To Reduce Global Warming Emissions
Dec 26, 2018 | Waste360
California’s Strategic Growth Council (SGC) approved funding for four groundbreaking research initiatives that will develop clean technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advance equitable outcomes for vulnerable communities.
The research teams that were selected for funding will explore topics as varied as developing tools for resilient forest management, sustainable use of biomass, improving carbon sequestration on farmlands and advancing more efficient cooling technologies in low income and disadvantaged communities.
Related: Are We Entering the Era of State Pollution Taxes?
“While California leads the nation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change, impacts already are being felt—and they are disproportionately affecting our most vulnerable communities,” said California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird in a statement. “Research funded through this program will help develop solutions that reduce emissions while providing local economic and public health benefits.”
These investments will be made through the SGC’s Climate Change Research Program, which is funded by cap-and-trade auction proceeds. Established in legislation that was signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017, the Climate Change Research Program supports crosscutting research investments that support clean energy, build community resilience and advance an equitable transition toward a more sustainable California. The decision initiates the second round of funding under this program; the first of which was awarded in July 2018.
“The SGC research grants are designed to fill gaps in our knowledge about some of the most promising climate change solutions, and move them more quickly to fruition,” said Ken Alex, director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and SGC chair, in a statement.
“In addition to supporting the development of innovative new technologies and approaches to reduce global warming emissions, these awards help to build critical partnerships between researchers and the people on the ground advancing climate solutions,” said SGC’s Executive Director Louise Bedsworth in a statement. “SGC is proud to support the partnerships that are critical to solving the climate challenge.”
Chosen through a rigorous multi-phased selection process, research proposals must advance California’s climate goals, while also supporting equitable outcomes for low income and disadvantaged communities. Researchers are required to develop collaborative teams that include engagement with stakeholders through every phase of the research.
For example, the University of California (UC), Office of the President will partner with UC Berkeley, UC Merced, CSU East Bay and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on its sustainable land management research proposal, which also includes engagement with tribal nations and agricultural partners in all stages of the research process. For the first time ever, this research will combine different technologies that help capture carbon in soils to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
https://www.waste360.com/emissions/california-invests-research-reduce-global-warming-emissions
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Energy News
Chemical Management 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